DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Arguments
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 7-8, that the claimed subject matter recites at least a practical application of physical configuration or control of a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or provision of a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(d) to determine whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner interprets claim limitations “using a computer model” and “physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process” as additional elements. The limitation of “using a computer model” has been interpreted as merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. The limitation of “physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process” has been interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore the additional elements do not demonstrate that the claims is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
103 Rejection Arguments
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 9, that the cited portions of Anonymous are silent regarding sorting wafers. Instead, paragraph 1 of page 4 of Anonymous describes historical ADI measurements being classified in groups. In other words, instead of allocating particular wafers to particular groups, paragraph 1 of page 4 of Anonymous merely describes allocating particular measurements (taken from a pool of measurements captured from many wafers from a number of lots) to particular groups.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner uses BRI when interpreting the claims. Examiner interprets the claims as parameter data, which is broad and therefore can be anything that corresponds to semiconductor wafers, is used to sort the semiconductor wafers. Therefore, by sorting the historical ADI measurements, it is in turn sorting the wafers that the measurements have been taking from. In addition, the prior art mentions in Step 3 that “any newly exposed and non-measured wafer is mapped to a group based on the available context or scanner metrology data using the correlation established in step 1”, which suggests sorting of wafers based on measurements grouping in step 1.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 9, that it is apparent that paragraph 5 of page 4 of Anonymous is not directed to identifying anything out of the subsets created in step 1 of Anonymous (let alone identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set), but rather merely used to fix a faulty mapping of a group of measurements from step 1 with a non-measured wafer.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner uses BRI when interpreting the claims. Examiner interprets the claims as identifying semiconductor wafers based on a probability of the wafer being correctly grouped to the subset. Therefore, by flagging all wafers, for which the group mapping is inconsistent is identifying which wafer that has been incorrectly grouped to be flagged. In addition, the prior art mentions in step 4 “The ADI measurement is then used to verify the relevance and accuracy of the grouping”, which suggests a probability/relevance that the wafer is correctly grouped.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 10, there is no disclosure or teaching of any comparison in paragraph 3 of page 4 of Anonymous. If it is alleged that the "mapping" corresponds the claimed comparison, then it is not apparent what corresponds to the claimed identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set as the claimed comparing is performed for an already identified one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set and it cannot be paragraph 5 of page 4 of Anonymous because it describes an operation on already mapped wafers. Furthermore, the Office Action does not identify what in this paragraph corresponds to the claimed parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers. Paragraph 3 of page 4 of Anonymous states that the wafer is "non-measured."
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner uses BRI when interpreting the claims. Examiner interprets the claims as comparing parameter data of the identified wafer to a reference parameter data. Examiner further points to the prior art where it mentions in step 5 “This flagging can he used to either trigger a measurement of said wafer in order to establish their real ADI fingerprint, and/or to update the established grouping similar to what is described in step 4”, which suggest that the parameter data (measurements) of the identified wafer (flagged wafer) is used to compare against other measurements to correctly group the wafer. Therefore the prior art does disclose “comparing the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data.”
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 10, the cited portions of Chan fail to disclose or teach, for example, sorting a set of semiconductor wafers, using a computer model, into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers; identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set; comparing the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data; and reconfiguring the model based on the comparison, as recited by claim 1.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that prior art Anonymously does teach the cited portions and therefore does not rely on Chan to teach it.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 10, hat the cited portions of Anonymous and Gerald fail to disclose or teach clam 1. Even assuming arguendo that the cited portions of Anonymous, Chan, and Chu are properly combinable (which Applicant does not concede), the cited portions of Chu fail to overcome the deficiencies of the cited portions of Anonymous and Chan.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that prior art Anonymously does teach the cited portions and therefore does not rely on Chan to teach it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claim 1 and 14 are 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.
Regarding the limitation of “physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process.” It is unclear what is being configured. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that a physical manufacturing process is configured based on the reconfigured model
Regarding the limitation of “physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process.” It is unclear what is being controlled. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that a physical manufacturing process is controlled based on the reconfigured model
Regarding the limitation of “physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process.” It is unclear what the phrase “or based on” is used for. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that a signal is provided representing the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process
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 1 – 14 and 16 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 1:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“A method comprising: sorting a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data.
“identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability.
“comparing the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could compare the parameter data of the identified semiconductor wafer to reference parameter data.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“reconfiguring the model based on the comparison.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process.” (insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“reconfiguring the model based on the comparison.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process.” (well-understood, routine, conventional MPEP 2106.05(d))
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 2:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising re-sorting at least part of the set of semiconductor wafers based on the reconfigured model.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could re-sort at least part of the set of semiconductor wafer based on the reconfigured model.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 3:
Claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 4:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“and wherein the comparison comprises identifying a part of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers that provides a stronger indication that the one or more identified semiconductor wafers should or should not be allocated to the sub-set than at least one further part of the parameter data.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify a part of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers that provides a stronger indication that the identified wafer should or should not be allocated.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“The method according to claim 3, wherein the reference data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter data associated with the sub-set,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“The method according to claim 3, wherein the reference data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter data associated with the sub-set,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 5:
Claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 6:
Claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 7:
Claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 8:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method according to claim 7, wherein the comparison comprises determining a separation between a sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could determine a separation between a sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafer and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 9:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method according to claim 8, wherein the comparison comprises determining a relative separation between the sub-set of the parameter data of the at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and the corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could determine a relative separation between a sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafer and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 12:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining the probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could determine the probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 14:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“sort a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data.
“identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability.
“compare the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could compare the parameter data of the identified semiconductor wafer to reference parameter data.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“using a computer model” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“reconfigure the model based on the comparison.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“cause physical configuration or control, based on the reconfigured model, of a physical manufacturing process or provide a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process” (insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“using a computer model” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“reconfigure the model based on the comparison.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“cause physical configuration or control, based on the reconfigured model, of a physical manufacturing process or provide a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process” (well-understood, routine, conventional MPEP 2106.05(d))
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 16:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the model is arranged to determine the plurality of sub-sets and/or the common characteristics of a sub-set based on the parameter data.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could determine the plurality of sub-sets and/or the common characteristics of a sub-set based on the parameter data.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 21:
Claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception from claim(s) depended on and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 22:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“sort a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data.
“identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability.
“compare the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could compare the parameter data of the identified semiconductor wafer to reference parameter data.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“using a computer model” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“present a graphical user interface having a visualization of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and having a visualization of reference parameter data to enable comparison by a human of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers with the reference parameter data;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receive a selection, by the human, via the user interface with respect to the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“reconfigure the model based on the selection.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“using a computer model” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“present a graphical user interface having a visualization of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and having a visualization of reference parameter data to enable comparison by a human of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers with the reference parameter data;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receive a selection, by the human, via the user interface with respect to the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“reconfigure the model based on the selection.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous; “Fingerprint decomposition and correlation for root-cause specific diagnostics and wafer level grouping” (hereinafter “Anonymous”) in view of Chan; Gerald; US 20140236527 A1 (hereinafter “Gerald”).
Regarding claim 1, Anonymous teaches A method comprising: sorting a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 1; "In step 1, historical ADI measurements of previous lots are "classified" in groups via grouping analysis…In step 2, a fingerprint library is built such that for each group established" Examiner notes that classifying previous lots is sorting a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data/context or scanner metrology data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein a sub-set includes one or more common characteristics/fingerprints)
identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 5; "In step 5, an additional safety mechanism is provided by flagging all wafers, for which the group mapping described in step 3 is inconsistent or uncertain based on standard grouping KPIs like Silhouette." Examiner notes that flagging wafers for which the group mapping is inconsistent or uncertain is identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafer being correctly allocated to the sub-set)
comparing the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 3; "In step 3, any newly exposed and non-measured wafer is mapped to a group based on the available context or scanner metrology data using the correlation established in step 1. For that wafer, a probabilistic prediction of overlay and/or die yield is made using both the average fingerprint of the group as well as the known standard deviation of the overlay fingerprints within the group." Examiner notes newly exposed and non-measured wafers/identified semiconductor wafer is mapped based on comparing context or scanner metrology data/parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafer to reference parameter data/fingerprints)
and reconfiguring the model based on the comparison. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 4; "In step 4, the mapping described in step 3 is also done for the wafers for which ADI is measured. The ADI measurement is then used to verify the reference and accuracy of the grouping and if required, to update the characteristic fingerprints of the group;" Examiner notes that updating the characteristic fingerprints of the group is reconfiguring the model based on the ADI measurements obtains from the comparison in step 3)
and physically configuring or controlling a physical manufacturing process based on the reconfigured model, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 6; “the proposed model may be used for group based overlay control in high volume manufacturing (HPM).” Examiner notes that physically controlling a physical manufacturing process (group based overlay control in high volume manufacturing (HPM)) is based on the reconfigured model (proposed model))
Anonymous does not teach using a computer model
However, Gerald does teach using a computer model (Gerald Paragraph 0049; “FIG. 2A is a block diagram of an example of a tester control system 110 capable of implementing embodiments of the present disclosure.” Examiner notes that the tester control system is the computer model performing the method of claim 1)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous and Gerald. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous and Gerald to allow users to easily adjust the testing process “allows the user to set up an entire program flow, wherein tests are repeated with varying parameters, and invoke the program flow easily by clicking a GUI icon.” (Gerald Paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 2, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising re-sorting at least part of the set of semiconductor wafers based on the reconfigured model. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 6; "Since the proposed model provides a more "dynamic" update on grouping performance, the lime required to re-act the grouping varication is thus reduced." Examiner notes that re-acting is resorting at least part of the set of semiconductor wafers based on the reconfigured model)
Regarding claim 3, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the reference parameter data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter data associated with the sub-set and/or parameter data of one or more further semiconductor wafers in the set of semiconductor wafers. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 2; "In step 2, a fingerprint library is built such that for each group established" Examiner notes that the reference parameter data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter associated with the sub-set/fingerprint)
Regarding claim 4, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein the reference data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter data associated with the sub-set, and wherein the comparison comprises identifying a part of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers that provides a stronger indication that the one or more identified semiconductor wafers should or should not be allocated to the sub-set than at least one further part of the parameter data. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 3; "In step 3, any newly exposed and non-measured wafer is mapped to a group based on the available context or scanner metrology data using the correlation established in step 1. For that wafer, a probabilistic prediction of overlay and/or die yield is made using both the average fingerprint of the group as well as the known standard deviation of the overlay fingerprints within the group…The prediction accuracy can then be further enhanced using the above-described method in order 10 include systematic and random AEI-ADI biases calculated on previous lots;" Examiner notes that the reference data comprises the one or more common characteristics of the parameter data associated with the sub-set/fingerprint, and wherein the comparison comprises identifying a part of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor/newly exposed and non-measured wafer that provides a stronger indication that the one or more identified wafer should or should not be allocated to the sub-set than at least one further part of the parameter data/prediction accuracy)
Regarding claim 5, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the part of the parameter data that provides a stronger indication comprises a part which must be present in the parameter data for an identified semiconductor wafer to be allocated to the sub-set and/or a part which must not be present in the parameter data for an identified semiconductor wafer to be allocated to the sub-set. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 3; "For that wafer, a probabilistic prediction of overlay and/or die yield is made using both the average fingerprint of the group as well as the known standard deviation of the overlay fingerprints within the group." Examiner notes that prediction/stronger indication comprises a part which must be present in the parameter data/fingerprint for identified semiconductor wafer to be allocated to the sub-set)
Regarding claim 6, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 4, wherein the identifying the part of the parameter data comprises receiving an input from a human indicating whether the identified one or more semiconductor wafers should be allocated to the sub-set.
However, Gerald does teach The method according to claim 4, wherein the identifying the part of the parameter data comprises receiving an input from a human indicating whether the identified one or more semiconductor wafers should be allocated to the sub-set. (Gerald Paragraph 0058; "Input device 128 generally represents any type or form of input device capable of providing input, either computer- or human-generated, to control system 110." Examiner notes that the input device receives an input from a human that can indicate whether the identified one or more semiconductor wafer should be allocated to the sub-set)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous and Gerald. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous and Gerald to allow users to easily adjust the testing process “allows the user to set up an entire program flow, wherein tests are repeated with varying parameters, and invoke the program flow easily by clicking a GUI icon.” (Gerald Paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 7, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein the reference data comprises the parameter data of two further semiconductor wafers in the set of semiconductor wafers. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 2; "a fingerprint library is built such that for each group established in step 1, an average
fingerprint as well as the "standard deviation" of individual fingerprints in the group from that average fingerprint are established;" Examiner notes that the fingerprint group contains parameter data/fingerprints of at least two other wafers in the set/group)
Regarding claim 8, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 7, wherein the comparison comprises determining a separation between a sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 3; "if there is a new underlying fingerprint
emerging from a given chamber, it may be detected by measuring the fingerprint similarity between the novel fingerprint and the known fingerprints from all groups." Examiner notes that the measuring the fingerprint similarity is determining a separation between a subset of the parameter data/fingerprint of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor)
Regarding claim 9, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein the comparison comprises determining a relative separation between the sub-set of the parameter data of the at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and the corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 3; "if there is a new underlying fingerprint
emerging from a given chamber, it may be detected by measuring the fingerprint similarity between the novel fingerprint and the known fingerprints from all groups." Examiner notes that the measuring the fingerprint similarity is determining a relative separation between a subset of the parameter data/fingerprint of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and corresponding sub-sets of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor)
Regarding claim 10, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein the sub-set of the parameter data of the at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers relates to a region and/or feature of interest of a semiconductor wafer. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 6; "A better overlay performance in turn lowers the wafer rework rate and increases the
yield." Examiner notes that the overlay shows relates to a feature of interest of a semiconductor wafer)
Regarding claim 11, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 7, wherein the comparison comprises receiving an indication from a human of which sub-set of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers is closer to the sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers.
However, Gerald does teach The method according to claim 7, wherein the comparison comprises receiving an indication from a human of which sub-set of the parameter data of the two further semiconductor wafers is closer to the sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers. (Gerald Paragraph 0058; "Input device 128 generally represents any type or form of input device capable of providing input, either computer- or human-generated, to control system 110." Examiner notes that input device receives an indication from a human of which sub-set of the parameter data of the two further wafer is closer to the sub-set of the parameter data of at least one of the one or more identified wafers)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous and Gerald. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous and Gerald to allow users to easily adjust the testing process “allows the user to set up an entire program flow, wherein tests are repeated with varying parameters, and invoke the program flow easily by clicking a GUI icon.” (Gerald Paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 12, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining the probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set. (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 2; "the regular batch version of the GMM may be used to obtain the initial wafer-group assignment probability and aggregate all wafers that are processed by a given chamber to obtain the chamber-group assignment probability." Examiner notes that the assignment probability is degerming the probability of the one or more semiconductor wafer being correctly allocated to the sub-set)
Regarding claim 13, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the model comprises a machine learning algorithm. (Anonymous Page 2 Paragraph 4; "by unsupervised learning" Examiner notes that unsupervised learning is a machine learning algorithm)
Regarding claim 14, Anonymous teaches sort a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 1; "In step 1, historical ADI measurements of previous lots are "classified" in groups via grouping analysis…In step 2, a fingerprint library is built such that for each group established" Examiner notes that classifying previous lots is sorting a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data/context or scanner metrology data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein a sub-set includes one or more common characteristics/fingerprints)
identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 5; "In step 5, an additional safety mechanism is provided by flagging all wafers, for which the group mapping described in step 3 is inconsistent or uncertain based on standard grouping KPIs like Silhouette." Examiner notes that flagging wafers for which the group mapping is inconsistent or uncertain is identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafer being correctly allocated to the sub-set)
compare the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers to reference parameter data; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 5; " This flagging can he used to either trigger a measurement of said wafer in order to establish their real ADI fingerprint, and/or to update the established grouping similar to what is described in step 4” Examiner notes that the parameter data (measurements) of the identified wafer (flagged wafer) is used to compare against other measurements (reference parameter data) to correctly group the wafer.)
and reconfigure the model based on the comparison. (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 4; "In step 4, the mapping described in step 3 is also done for the wafers for which ADI is measured. The ADI measurement is then used to verify the reference and accuracy of the grouping and if required, to update the characteristic fingerprints of the group;" Examiner notes that updating the characteristic fingerprints of the group is reconfiguring the model based on the ADI measurements obtains from the comparison in step 3)
and cause physical configuration or control, based on the reconfigured model, of a physical manufacturing process or provide a signal representing, or based on, the reconfigured model to a system for use in configuration or control of the process (Anonymous Page 5 Paragraph 6; “the proposed model may be used for group based overlay control in high volume manufacturing (HPM).” Examiner notes that physically controlling a physical manufacturing process (group based overlay control in high volume manufacturing (HPM)) is based on the reconfigured model (proposed model))
Anonymous does not teach A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:
using a computer model
However, Gerald does teach A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least: (Gerald Paragraph 0046; “embodiments described herein may be discussed in the general context of computer-executable instructions residing on some form of computer-readable storage medium, such as program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable storage media may comprise non-transitory computer-readable storage media and communication media;”)
using a computer model (Gerald Paragraph 0049; “FIG. 2A is a block diagram of an example of a tester control system 110 capable of implementing embodiments of the present disclosure.” Examiner notes that the tester control system is the computer model performing the method of claim 1)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous and Gerald. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous and Gerald to allow users to easily adjust the testing process “allows the user to set up an entire program flow, wherein tests are repeated with varying parameters, and invoke the program flow easily by clicking a GUI icon.” (Gerald Paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 16, Anonymous teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the model is arranged to determine the plurality of sub-sets and/or the common characteristics of a sub-set based on the parameter data. (Anonymous Page 2 Paragraph 3; "The ADI and AEI overlay measurements can be used to determine a non-zero offset (or overlay fingerprint)" Examiner notes that the model is determining common characteristics/fingerprints based on the parameter data/ADI and AEI measurements)
Claim(s) 17 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous; “Fingerprint decomposition and correlation for root-cause specific diagnostics and wafer level grouping” (hereinafter “Anonymous”) in view of Chan; Gerald; US 20140236527 A1 (hereinafter “Gerald”) in further view of Mo; Chu Yuan; “US 20200182927 A1” (hereinafter “Chu”).
Regarding claim 17, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter data comprises yield data associated with a plurality of areas on the set of semiconductor wafers.
However, Chu does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter data comprises yield data associated with a plurality of areas on the set of semiconductor wafers. (Chu Paragraph 0014; "The test data in one data group are generated by the same group of probes. The yield of each data group is further estimated. The yield of the wafer is further estimated when the yield of the data group matches the first failure threshold." Examiner notes that yield data/test data is associated with a plurality of areas/probes on the set of semiconductor wafers)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Chu teaches a method of detecting abnormal test of a semiconductor wafer. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu to easily identify which block has failed “the operator easily identifies which blocks in the failure color on the test data map are caused by the abnormal test signal channel.” (Chu Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 18, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 17, wherein the yield data has been determined by sequentially undertaking a plurality of tests on the plurality of areas.
However, Chu does teach The method according to claim 17, wherein the yield data has been determined by sequentially undertaking a plurality of tests on the plurality of areas. (Chu Paragraph 0035; "With reference to FIG. 6B, a second embodiment of the method of detecting abnormal test signal channel of the ATE in accordance with the present invention is shown." Examiner notes that Fig 6B is showing yield data has been determined by sequentially undertaking a plurality of test/first raw test data and second raw test data on the plurality of areas/all areas of wafer except the edges)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Chu teaches a method of detecting abnormal test of a semiconductor wafer. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu to easily identify which block has failed “the operator easily identifies which blocks in the failure color on the test data map are caused by the abnormal test signal channel.” (Chu Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 19, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 18, wherein the yield data comprises data indicative of which of the plurality of tests has been passed and/or failed by the plurality of areas.
However, Chu does teach The method according to claim 18, wherein the yield data comprises data indicative of which of the plurality of tests has been passed and/or failed by the plurality of areas. (Chu Paragraph 0013; "generating a failure group information when the determining result of the step (d) is negative, wherein the failure group information records the test signal channel corresponding to the first failure group is abnormal." Examiner notes that failure information is data indicative of which of the plurality of tests has been failed by the plurality of areas)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Chu teaches a method of detecting abnormal test of a semiconductor wafer. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu to easily identify which block has failed “the operator easily identifies which blocks in the failure color on the test data map are caused by the abnormal test signal channel.” (Chu Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 20, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 18, wherein the yield data comprises data indicative of a repair density for one or more of the plurality of areas to pass one or more of the plurality of tests.
However, Chu does teach The method according to claim 18, wherein the yield data comprises data indicative of a repair density for one or more of the plurality of areas to pass one or more of the plurality of tests. (The method according to claim 18, wherein the yield data comprises data indicative of a repair density for one or more of the plurality of areas to pass one or more of the plurality of tests.)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Chu teaches a method of detecting abnormal test of a semiconductor wafer. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu to easily identify which block has failed “the operator easily identifies which blocks in the failure color on the test data map are caused by the abnormal test signal channel.” (Chu Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 21, Anonymous does not teach The method according to claim 17, wherein the common characteristics comprise a common yield data pattern relating to the plurality of areas on at least part of the semiconductor wafer.
However, Chu does teach The method according to claim 17, wherein the common characteristics comprise a common yield data pattern relating to the plurality of areas on at least part of the semiconductor wafer. (Chu Paragraph 0031; "Since the test data of all DUTs are respectively corresponding to all blocks of the test data map, FIG. 5A is also used as the raw test data." Examiner notes that Fig 5A is a common yield data pattern relating to the plurality of areas on at least part of the semiconductor)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Chu teaches a method of detecting abnormal test of a semiconductor wafer. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Chu to easily identify which block has failed “the operator easily identifies which blocks in the failure color on the test data map are caused by the abnormal test signal channel.” (Chu Paragraph 0014).
Claim(s) 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous; “Fingerprint decomposition and correlation for root-cause specific diagnostics and wafer level grouping” (hereinafter “Anonymous”) in view of Chan; Gerald; US 20140236527 A1 (hereinafter “Gerald”) in further view of Detlef Michelsson; US 20060240580 A1 (hereinafter “Michelsson”) in further view of Nouna Kettaneh et al; US 20100057237 A1 (hereinafter “Kettaneh”).
Regarding claim 22, Anonymous teaches sort a set of semiconductor wafers, [using a computer model], into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein the parameter data for semiconductor wafers in a sub-set include one or more common characteristics; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 1; "In step 1, historical ADI measurements of previous lots are "classified" in groups via grouping analysis…In step 2, a fingerprint library is built such that for each group established" Examiner notes that classifying previous lots is sorting a set of semiconductor wafers into a plurality of sub-sets based on parameter data/context or scanner metrology data corresponding to one or more parameters of the set of semiconductor wafers, wherein a sub-set includes one or more common characteristics/fingerprints)
identify one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafers being correctly allocated to the sub-set; (Anonymous Page 4 Paragraph 5; "In step 5, an additional safety mechanism is provided by flagging all wafers, for which the group mapping described in step 3 is inconsistent or uncertain based on standard grouping KPIs like Silhouette." Examiner notes that flagging wafers for which the group mapping is inconsistent or uncertain is identifying one or more semiconductor wafers within a sub-set based on a probability of the one or more semiconductor wafer being correctly allocated to the sub-set)
Anonymous does not teach A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least:
using a computer model
However, Gerald does teach A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to at least: (Gerald Paragraph 0046; “embodiments described herein may be discussed in the general context of computer-executable instructions residing on some form of computer-readable storage medium, such as program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable storage media may comprise non-transitory computer-readable storage media and communication media;”)
using a computer model (Gerald Paragraph 0049; “FIG. 2A is a block diagram of an example of a tester control system 110 capable of implementing embodiments of the present disclosure.” Examiner notes that the tester control system is the computer model performing the method of claim 1)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous and Gerald. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous and Gerald to allow users to easily adjust the testing process “allows the user to set up an entire program flow, wherein tests are repeated with varying parameters, and invoke the program flow easily by clicking a GUI icon.” (Gerald Paragraph 0138).
Anonymous in view of Gerald does not teach present a graphical user interface having a visualization of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and having a visualization of reference parameter data to enable comparison by a human of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers with the reference parameter data;
However, Michelsson does teach present a graphical user interface having a visualization of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers and having a visualization of reference parameter data to enable comparison by a human of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers with the reference parameter data; (Michelsson Paragraph 0006; “It is particularly advantageous if first an image of at least one reference wafer is recorded. Based on the recorded image, the radial distribution of the measurements made on the reference wafer is determined and represented on a user interface as a radial homogeneity function. A radially-dependent sensitivity profile is modified taking into account the radial homogeneity function of the reference wafer and varying at least one parameter of the sensitivity profile thereby visually deter-mining a learned sensitivity profile from the comparison with the radial homogeneity function. Defects on at least one other wafer are determined from a comparison of the learned radial sensitivity profile of the reference wafer and the measured radial distribution of the homogeneity function of the at least one other wafer.” Examiner notes that a graphical user interface (user interface) having a visualization/representation of the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers (the measured radial distribution of the homogeneity function of the at least one other wafer) and having a visualization/representation of reference parameter data (the learned radial sensitivity profile of the reference wafer) to enable comparison by a human of the parameter data and reference parameter data (Defects on at least one other wafer are determined from a comparison))
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Michelsson. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Michelsson teaches a method for evaluating recorded images of wafers. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, and Michelsson to ensure high quality wafers by finding possible defects “With increasing integration density, the requirements on the quality of the structures formed on the wafers increase. To be able to check the quality of the structures formed and to be able to find possible defects, corresponding requirements are placed on the quality, accuracy and reproducibility of the equipment components and processing steps handling the wafer. This means that in the production of a wafer with the multitude of processing steps and multitude of photoresist or similar layers that have to be applied, reliable and early detection of defects is particularly important” (Michelsson Paragraph 0002).
Anonymous in view of Gerald in further view of Michelsson does not teach receive a selection, by the human, via the user interface with respect to the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers;
and reconfigure the model based on the selection.
However, Kettaneh does teach receive a selection, by the human, via the user interface with respect to the parameter data of the one or more identified semiconductor wafers; (Kettaneh Paragraph 0038; “the user can select one or more wafers 120' with desirable properties after processing, and the values of process parameters communicated by the plurality of outputs 125 during the processing of such wafers is used to generate the template 150.”)
and reconfigure the model based on the selection. (Kettaneh Paragraph 0038; “the model 135 incorporates this information implicitly through previous wafer data to generate the new model.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Anonymous, Gerald, Michelsson, and Kettaneh. Anonymous teaches a method for classifying semiconductor wafers. Gerald teaches a tester control system for testing electronics parts. Michelsson teaches a method for evaluating recorded images of wafers. Kettaneh teaches a method for creating a new model of a manufacturing process according to a multivariate analysis. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Anonymous, Gerald, Michelsson, and Kettaneh to reduce the time of creating a model and improves the consistency of created model “The technology reduces the time associated with creating a model for use in manufacturing processes (e.g., monitoring and/or fault detection). The technology further reduces over time the involvement required by a process engineer. The technology further improves the consistency of created models” (Kettaneh Paragraph 0008).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL DUC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6870. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/D.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/ERIC NILSSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights