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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 6 and 17, they recite the limitation “a TEM image or an XSEM image” which would be better as “a transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image or a cross-sectional scanning electron microscope (XSEM) image”. 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.
3. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-10 recite steps or acts including determining plasma parameters at a surface of a wafer; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 11-19 recites a system comprising a plasma processing tool therefore are a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1 and 11 recite:
receive plasma process conditions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); and
determine plasma parameters at a surface of the wafer based on the plasma processing conditions with a plasma hypermodel (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts as described in the paragraph [0024] and [0030] and mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing a component).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “processor” (Claim 1, 4-5, 14-16 and 19), “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to instruct the processor to execute the method” (Claim 10), and “A system comprising: a plasma processing tool including: a plasma chamber;a stage disposed in the plasma chamber configured to hold a wafer; and a plasma generation system; and a processor in electronic communication with the plasma processing tool, wherein the processor is configured to” (Claim 11) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Further the additional elements of “a plasma processing tool including: a plasma chamber; a stage disposed in the plasma chamber configured to hold a wafer; and a plasma generation system;” and “the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 19-20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “receive plasma process conditions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “processor” (Claim 1, 4-5, 14-16 and 19), “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to instruct the processor to execute the method” (Claim 10), and “A system comprising: a plasma processing tool including: a plasma chamber;a stage disposed in the plasma chamber configured to hold a wafer; and a plasma generation system; and a processor in electronic communication with the plasma processing tool, wherein the processor is configured to” (Claim 11) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements of “a plasma processing tool including: a plasma chamber; a stage disposed in the plasma chamber configured to hold a wafer; and a plasma generation system;” and “the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claims 1 and 19-20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “receive plasma process conditions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Further dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19 recite:
(Claim 2 and 13) wherein the plasma process conditions include one or more of pressure, gas chemistry, temperature, flow rate, source power, bias power, source power, or a pulse condition (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
(Claim 3 and 14) inputting the plasma parameters into a feature-scale profile model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); and
predicting, using the processor, a post-processing profile for the surface of the wafer with the feature-scale profile model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
(Claim 4 and 15) comparing, using the processor, the post-processing profile with an experimental reference (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
(Claim 5 and 16) recalibrating correlations in the plasma hypermodel using the processor, wherein the post-processing profile is outside a convergence criterion of the experimental reference (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
(Claim 6 and 17) wherein the experimental reference is a TEM image or an XSEM image (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
(7 and 18) wherein the plasma hypermodel includes a matrix that is multiplied by the plasma process conditions (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
(Claim 8) wherein the plasma conditions are for an etch process, a deposition process, or an ion implant process (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 9) exposing the wafer to a plasma with the plasma process conditions in a plasma processing tool (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 12) wherein the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use).
(Claim 19) wherein the processor is further configured to send instructions to the plasma processing tool to generate a plasma with the plasma process conditions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or “apply it”).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tetiker et al. (US 20170176983 A1)
As per Claim 1 and 10-11, Tetiker et al. teaches a method/ non-transitory computer readable medium/system (Title, Abstract, [0132]-[0133]) comprising:
(Claim 11) a plasma processing tool (Fig. 6-7, [0104]-[0105], [0132]-[0133]) including: a plasma chamber; a stage disposed in the plasma chamber configured to hold a wafer; and a plasma generation system ([0104]-[0105] “a processing chamber, a substrate holder for holding a substrate within the processing chamber, and a plasma generator for generating a plasma within the processing chamber. The apparatus may further include one or more valve-controlled process gas inlets for flowing one or more process gases into the processing chamber, one or more gas outlets fluidically connected to one or more vacuum pumps for evacuating gases from the processing chamber, etc.”); and
a processor in electronic communication with the plasma processing tool, wherein the processor is configured to ([0104]-[0105], [0132]-[0133] “The instructions may be executed on processor 752”):
(Claim 1 and 10-11) receiving plasma process conditions at a processor ([0038]-[0042] “input parameters include plasma parameters such as ion flux and chemical reaction parameters such as the probability that a particular chemical reaction will occur. These parameters (and particularly, in some embodiments, the plasma parameters) may be obtained from various sources, including other models which calculate them from general reactor configurations and process conditions such as pressure, substrate temperature, plasma source parameters (e.g., power, frequencies, duty cycles provided to the plasma source), reactants, and their flow rates.”, “EPMs employ input variables (a type of independent variables)… local plasma properties such as fluxes and energies of particles such ions, radicals, photons, electrons, excited species, depositor species and their energy and angular distributions etc. ”); and
determining, using the processor, plasma parameters at a surface of a wafer based on the plasma processing conditions with a plasma hypermodel ([0042]-[0044] “EPMs … provide a relationship between the independent and response variables. The relationship may be linear or nonlinear. Generally, an EPM is what is referred to in the art as a cell-based Monte Carlo surface reaction model. These models, in there various forms, operate to simulate a wafer feature's topographical evolution over time in the context of semiconductor wafer fabrication. The models launch pseudo-particles with energy and angular distributions produced by a plasma model or experimental diagnostics for arbitrary radial locations on the wafer. The pseudo-particles are statistically weighted to represent the fluxes of radicals and ions to the surface. The models address various surface reaction mechanisms resulting in etching, sputtering, mixing, and deposition on the surface to predict profile evolution. During a Monte Carlo integration, the trajectories of various ion and neutral pseudo-particles are tracked within a wafer feature until they either react or leave the computational domain.’”).
As per Claim 2 and 13, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the plasma process conditions include one or more of pressure, gas chemistry, temperature, flow rate, source power, bias power, source power, or a pulse condition ([0038]-[0042] “input parameters include plasma parameters such as ion flux and chemical reaction parameters such as the probability that a particular chemical reaction will occur. These parameters (and particularly, in some embodiments, the plasma parameters) may be obtained from various sources, including other models which calculate them from general reactor configurations and process conditions such as pressure, substrate temperature, plasma source parameters (e.g., power, frequencies, duty cycles provided to the plasma source), reactants, and their flow rates.”).
As per Claim 3 and 14, Tetiker et al. teaches further comprising:
inputting the plasma parameters into a feature-scale profile model ([0037]-[0042] “he etch profile models (EPMs) compute a theoretically determined etch profile from a set of input etch reaction parameters (independent variables)… include plasma parameters such as ion flux and chemical reaction parameters such as the probability that a particular chemical reaction will occur.”, “EPMs take reaction parameters as independent variables and functionally generate etch profiles as response variables. ”); and
predicting, using the processor, a post-processing profile for the surface of the wafer with the feature-scale profile model ([0044] “The models address various surface reaction mechanisms resulting in etching, sputtering, mixing, and deposition on the surface to predict profile evolution.”, [0052]- [0053] “Model Parameter Tuning/Optimization”).
As per Claim 4 and 15, Tetiker et al. teaches further comprising comparing, using the processor, the post-processing profile with an experimental reference ([0024], [0052]- [0054] “Each measured experimental etch profile provides a benchmark for tuning the computerized etch profile model. Accordingly, a series of calculations are performed with the etch profile model by applying the experimental etch profiles to see how the model deviates from reality in its prediction of etch profiles.”, “a tuned and/or optimized model reduces—and in some cases substantially minimizes—a metric which is related to (indicative of, quantifies, etc.) the combined differences between the etch profiles which are measured as a result of performing the etch experiments, and the corresponding computed etch profiles as generated from the model. ”, [0061] “By comparing the experimentally and theoretically generated etch profiles, a set of model parameters used by the etch profile model can be refined”).
As per Claim 5 and 16, Tetiker et al. teaches further comprising recalibrating correlations in the plasma hypermodel using the processor, wherein the post-processing profile is outside a convergence criterion of the experimental reference ([0058]-[0060] “ in operation 350 it is determined whether the currently specified model parameters are such that the error metric calculated in operation 340 is locally minimized (in terms of the space of model parameters), and if not, one or more values of the set of model parameters are modified in operation 360, and then used to generate a new set of etch profiles—repeating operation 335 as schematically indicated in FIG. 3's flowchart—and thereafter a new error metric is calculated in a repeating of operation 340. The process then proceeds again to operation 250 where it is determined whether this new combination of model parameters represents a local minimum over all the sets of input parameters as assessed by the error metric. If so, the optimization procedure concludes, as indicated in the figure. If not, the model parameters are again modified in operation 360 and the cycle repeats.”).
As per Claim 6 and 17, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the experimental reference is a TEM image or an XSEM image ([0050] “cross-sectional SEM…. SEM (wherein the experiment basically images a feature's etch profile)”).
As per Claim 7 and 18, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the plasma hypermodel includes a matrix that is multiplied by the plasma process conditions ([0044] “EPMs may take any of many different forms. Ultimately, they provide a relationship between the independent and response variables. The relationship may be linear”, [0096]-[0099] “One data analysis technique for achieving this is principle component analysis (PCA), which makes use of the singular value decomposition (SVD), a matrix decomposition technique from numerical linear algebra.”, “by performing a PCA on the concatenated vectors of input parameters and corresponding measured etch profiles.”).
As per Claim 8, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the plasma conditions are for an etch process, a deposition process, or an ion implant process ([0041] “the etch profile model, these variables are applied… the plasma parameters include local plasma properties such as fluxes and energies of particles such ions, radicals, photons, electrons, excited species, depositor species and their energy and angular distributions etc.”, [0104]-[0105] “ optimized EPM may be integrated with an etcher apparatus”, [0131], [0140] “within a processing chamber during film deposition and/or etching operations on substrates”).
As per Claim 9, Tetiker et al. teaches further comprising exposing the wafer to a plasma with the plasma process conditions in a plasma processing tool ([0105] “The apparatus may further include one or more valve-controlled process gas inlets for flowing one or more process gases into the processing chamber, one or more gas outlets fluidically connected to one or more vacuum pumps for evacuating gases from the processing chamber,”, [0143]-0145]).
As per Claim 12, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool ([0104]-[0105] “the etcher apparatus my constitute an inductively-coupled plasma (ICP) reactor;”).
As per Claim 19, Tetiker et al. teaches wherein the processor is further configured to send instructions to the plasma processing tool to generate a plasma with the plasma process conditions ([0105], [0133] “The instructions may be executed on processor 752—the system control instructions, in some embodiments, loaded into memory device 756 from mass storage device 754. System control instructions may include instructions for controlling the timing, mixture of gaseous and liquid reactants, chamber and/or station pressures, chamber and/or station temperatures, wafer temperatures, target power levels, RF power levels (e.g., DC power levels, RF bias power levels), RF exposure times, substrate pedestal, chuck, and/or susceptor positions, and other parameters of a particular process performed by a process tool.”).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng et al. (US 20200218844 A1)
Kokotov et al. (US 20080021571 A1)
Tetiker et al. (US 20190049937 A1)
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188