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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are Canceled.
Claims 21-24 are new and pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 23 repeated recite “a cross-sectional shape” however it is not clear if these are referring to the same or a different cross-sectional shape. For the purposes of examining they are considered to generally refer to a cross sectional shape rather than a specific shape.
Claims 21 and 23 repeated recite “a degree of coincidence” however it is not clear if these are referring to the same or a different degree of coincidence. For the purposes of examining they are considered to be the same.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 21 and similarly 23 recite(s) “adopt a first parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate second spectral image data correlated to a first cross-sectional shape; compare the first spectral image data with the second spectral image data to determine whether a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than a threshold; decide, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the first cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns; adopt, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than the threshold, a second parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate third spectral image data correlated to a second cross-sectional shape; decide, when a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the third spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in light of applicants description in the specification see for example Figs. 10-11A-C and Par. 55-70.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a cross-sectional shape measurement device comprising: a positioning mechanism that supports a sample, a surface of the sample having multiple hole patterns; a radiation applier that applies a first X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the sample; a radiation detector including two-dimensional pixels each collecting a second X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the sample to generate a first spectral image data, the first spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation; a library that stores shape function information;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a controller is configured to:” are considered to be 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 elements of “acquire the shape function information from the library, the shape function information correlating spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation with a cross-sectional shape;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a cross-sectional shape measurement device comprising: a positioning mechanism that supports a sample, a surface of the sample having multiple hole patterns; a radiation applier that applies a first X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the sample; a radiation detector including two-dimensional pixels each collecting a second X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the sample to generate a first spectral image data, the first spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation; a library that stores shape function information;” are considered to be 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 per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a controller is configured to:”are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “acquire the shape function information from the library, the shape function information correlating spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation with a cross-sectional shape;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Claims 22 and 24 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fan (US 20210150116 A1).
In claim 1, Fan discloses a cross-sectional shape measurement device (Fig. 1) comprising: a positioning mechanism (Fig. 1, SW) that supports a sample (Fig. 1, W), a surface of the sample having multiple hole patterns (Par. 38 “patterns of a layer of a modeled wafer”); a radiation applier (Fig. 1 SO BD) that applies a first X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the sample (See Fig. 1); a radiation detector including two-dimensional pixels (Fig. 1, SO BD) each collecting a second X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the sample to generate a first spectral image data (Par. 34 “cross-section profile” Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11), the first spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation (Par. 158 “two dimensional electron beam image”); a library that stores shape function information (Par. 158 “memory to store all or part of digital images for processing”, Par. 124-125, “function”, “simulation functions”); a controller (Fig. 110 “processor”) is configured to: acquire the shape function information from the library, the shape function information correlating spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation with a cross-sectional shape (Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11 Par. 158 “two dimensional electron beam image”); adopt a first parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate second spectral image data correlated to a first cross-sectional shape (Par. 143 “scatterometry measurements”, Par. 80, 143 “cross-section”, “an accurate shape using data from cross-sectional profile images”); compare the first spectral image data with the second spectral image data to determine whether a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than a threshold (Par. 86 “coincide with axes of a co-ordinate system” Par. 126 “tolerance threshold”); decide, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the first cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns (Par. 153, 159 “comparison to dimensions obtained from the image of the corresponding layer”); adopt, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than the threshold, a second parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate third spectral image data correlated to a second cross-sectional shape (Par. 153, 159 Fig, 8); decide, when a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the third spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns (Par. 153, 159 “comparison to dimensions obtained from the image of the corresponding layer”).
In claim 23 Fan discloses a cross-sectional shape measurement method (Fig. 1) comprising: supporting a sample (Fig. 1, W), a surface of the sample having multiple hole patterns (Par. 38 “patterns of a layer of a modeled wafer”); applying a first X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the sample (See Fig. 1 SO BD); generating a first spectral image data by using a radiation detector pixels (Fig. 1, SO BD) including two-dimensional pixels each collecting a second X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the sample (Par. 34 “cross-section profile” Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11), the first spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation (Par. 158 “two dimensional electron beam image”); acquiring shape function information from a library that stores the shape function information (Par. 158 “memory to store all or part of digital images for processing”, Par. 124-125, “function”, “simulation functions”), the shape function information correlating spectral image data indicating a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation with a cross-sectional shape (Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11 Par. 158 “two dimensional electron beam image”); adopting a first parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate a second spectral image data correlated to a first cross-sectional shape (Par. 143 “scatterometry measurements”, Par. 80, 143 “cross-section”, “an accurate shape using data from cross-sectional profile images”); comparing the first spectral image data with the second spectral image data to determine whether a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than a threshold (Par. 86 “coincide with axes of a co-ordinate system” Par. 126 “tolerance threshold”); deciding, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the first cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns (Par. 153, 159 “comparison to dimensions obtained from the image of the corresponding layer”); adopting, when the degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the second spectral image data is lower than the threshold, a second parameter to the acquired shape function information to generate third spectral image data correlated to a second cross-sectional shape (Par. 153, 159 Fig, 8); deciding, when a degree of coincidence between the first spectral image data and the third spectral image data is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second cross-sectional shape as a cross-sectional shape of each of the multiple hole patterns (Par. 153, 159 “comparison to dimensions obtained from the image of the corresponding layer”).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The new claims are rejected for the reasons cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040264627 A1, Dynamic Multi-spectral X-ray Projection Imaging; US 20030197873 A1, Shape Measurement Method And Apparatus;
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
