CTNF 18/033,028 CTNF 100652 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 04/20/2023. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-22, and 24 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20207862.2 , filed on 11/16/2020 . Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. ( Examiner’s interpretation ), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution . 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2023, 4/25/2023, 8/6/2025, and 8/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 21-22, and 24 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. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph , as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01 . Regarding independent claim 1 , the claim recites “ performing a combined fitting to fit to the measurement data ”. Applicant fails to clearly disclose how this limitation is performed. “Performing a combined fitting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Referring to Applicant’s Specification disclosure doesn’t provide clarity. Specification [P.0056] states “This fit ( i.e. combined fit ) may be solved by minimizing a cost function”. Specification [P.0063] states the “combined fit in the first step may comprise ”. According to Applicant’s disclosure the use of “may” renders this limitation indefinite. Applicant discloses “As used throughout this application, the word “may” is used in a permissive sense (i.e., meaning having the potential to), rather than the mandatory sense (i.e., meaning must)” Spec. [P.0080]. Applicant may overcome this rejection if they can show where within the Specification “performing a combined fitting” is disclosed in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 also recites “ at least a first interfield model which describes distortion over the substrate and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field ”. It is unclear what the purpose of this limitation is and how it relates to performing a combined fitting, as it isn’t precluded with action / functional language nor does it include language relating to performing a combined fitting. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as “ comprising at least a first interfield model which describes distortion over the substrate and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field”. Clarification is required. Claim 1 (Ln.10 and 14) also recites “ which minimize a certain model functional ”. The use of “a certain model functional” is unclear. Referring to Specification doesn’t provide clarity. Which model functional is this limitation referring to? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as referring to any model functional. Clarification is required. Claim 1 also recites “ the at least a first interfield model comprises a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional ”. It is unclear how this limitation is to be interpreted. i.e. What is separated by “or” within the limitation? Is the first interfield model meant to comprise a “radial basis function model” or “an elastic energy minimizing spline model”? Or, is a radial basis function model meant to describe distortion over the substrate in terms of “radial basis functions” or “an elastic energy minimizing spline model”? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the former. Clarification is required. Claim 1 also recites “ or the method further comprises fitting a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional to a distortion residual of the combined fit of a different interfield model and the field distortion model .” It is unclear how this limitation is to be interpreted. i.e. What is separated by “or” within the limitation? Is the limitation meant to be interpreted as further comprising “fitting a radial basis function model” or “fitting an elastic energy minimizing spline model? Or, is a radial basis function model meant to describe distortion over the substrate in terms of “radial basis functions” or “an elastic energy minimizing spline model”? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the former. Clarification is required. Independent claim 1 omits essential method steps. The omitted steps relating to “ performing a combined fitting to fit to the measurement data ”. i.e., What steps to perform a combined fitting is the Applicant claiming as the invention? The remaining claim limitations provide no guidance. The remaining claim limitations simply mention different models (e.g. a first interfield, a field distortion, a radial basis function, an elastic energy minimizing spline, and a different interfield model) and what those models describe, but fail to disclose how those models relate to “performing a combined fitting”. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the claimed method. Claim 4 (Ln.4) recites “ depends on the parameters of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the parameters” in the claims. To overcome this rejection the Applicant can either amend previous claims to include “parameters” or simply amend claim 4 to recite “depends on parameters of the radial basis function model”. Clarification is required. Claim 6 recites “ the radial basis function model and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field ”. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation and what purpose this limitation serves. Referring to Specification doesn’t provide clarity. How does the radial basis function and a field distortion model relate to the combined fitting? The limitation is lacking actionable / functional language. Clarification is required. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the full wafer ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What full wafer is the claim referring to? Clarification is required. Claim 21 recites “ using the result of the fitting step(s) to define ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What result and what fitting step(s) is the claim referring? No fitting steps nor results of those steps have been recited. Clarification is required. Additionally, per MPEP 2173.05(q), “[a]ttempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness [ ] because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.” Using the results of the fitting steps to define a grid without disclosing what the results are or how the results are used to “define a grid” is considered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Applicant may overcome this rejection by canceling or amending claim. The dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 12-15, 17, 22, and 24 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph , as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites “ is used to fit data for which the combined fit without regularization would be underdetermined ”. This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends since the limitation is dependent upon the combined fit without regularization being undetermined. i.e., If the combined fit without regularization was determined, then the claim fails to further limit the subject matter. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires: Step 1 . Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter ( see MPEP 2106.03 ); Step 2A . Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea ( MPEP 2106.04 ); Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A) . Under the first prong , examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) . The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d) . Step 2B . If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106 ). Step 1 : Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are directed to a method , as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process . Claim 24 is directed towards transitory propagating signals per se . The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir.1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium (also called computer-readable storage and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.07. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of acclaim covers a signal per se , the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.2. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0074], “Aspects of the invention can be implemented in any convenient form. For example, an embodiment may be implemented by one or more appropriate computer programs which may be carried on an appropriate carrier medium which may be a tangible carrier medium (e.g. a disk) or an intangible carrier medium (e.g. a communications signal)”, the computer program “carrier” is interpreted as a non-transitory medium. The Applicant may overcome rejection by amending claim commensurate with Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0075]. Note : Claim has also been evaluated under the abstract idea analysis below. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims recite Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per independent claim 1 , the claim recites the limitations of: at least a first interfield model which describes distortion over the substrate and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind.); the at least a first interfield model comprises a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind.); or the method further comprises fitting a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional to a distortion residual of the combined fit of a different interfield model and the field distortion model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind.). Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 1) : As per claim 1 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: obtaining measurement data relating to the substrate (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.) ; performing a combined fitting to fit to the measurement data (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how a combined fitting is performed. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 1) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception given the following. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 18) : The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims recite Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded . As per independent claim 18 , the claim recites the limitations of: performing a fitting to fit a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field to the measurement data by minimizing a cost function comprising a regularization term which depends on parameters of the field distortion model, the regularization term relating to bending energy of the field distortion model . (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind.) Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 18) : As per claim 18 , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: obtaining measurement data relating to the substrate (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Step 2B (Claim 18) : For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The additional element as described in Step 2A Prong 2 is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception given the following. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. For the foregoing reasons, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 24 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 24 further recites A non-transient computer program carrier comprising the computer program instructions therein, the instructions, when run on a suitable apparatus, configured to cause the apparatus to at least perform the method of claim 1. (Note: see signal per se rejection above ) The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). i.e., mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. For the foregoing reasons, claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 recites wherein the radial basis function model comprises a polyharmonic spline model . The additional element elaborates on the radial basis function model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 3 , the method of claim 2, recites wherein the polyharmonic spline model comprises a thin plate spline model . The additional element elaborates on the polyharmonic spline model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 4 recites comprising including a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized in the fit of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model, where this regularization term at least depends on the parameters of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model . The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 5 , the method of claim 4, recites wherein the regularization term is equal to the functional that is minimized . The additional element elaborates on the regularization term, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 6 recites comprising performing the combined fitting to fit to the measurement data: the radial basis function model and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field; and the combined fit further comprises fitting a polynomial interfield model to the measurement data . The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 7 was canceled. Claim 8 recites comprising fitting the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model to a distortion residual of the combined fit of the interfield model and field distortion model, and the interfield model comprises a higher order polynomial interfield model. The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 9 recites further comprising including a regularization term which depends on field distortion model parameters, in a cost function that is minimized in the combined fitting . The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 10 , the method of claim 9, recites wherein the regularization term which depends on the field distortion model parameters relates to bending energy of the field distortion model or to an integral of the square of the field distortion model over a field or the full wafer. The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim 11 has been canceled. Claim 12 , the method of claim 9, recites wherein the combined fitting with the regularization term included in the cost function that is minimized is used to fit data for which the combined fit without regularization would be underdetermined. The additional elements further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 13 recites wherein the combined fitting is performed on a combined measurement layout comprising measurement locations distributed over the substrate, at different intrafield locations per exposure field. The additional element elaborates on the combined fitting, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 14 recites wherein the field distortion model comprises a polynomial intrafield model. The additional element elaborates on the field distortion model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 15 recites wherein the field distortion model comprises an average field model which describes the intrafield content of the measurement data with a translation parameter per intrafield location . The additional element elaborates on the field distortion model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim 16 has been canceled. Claim 17 recites wherein the field distortion model comprises one of: a per field model that describes the distortions of individual fields and are zero outside that field; a scan up scan down intrafield model in which the fields that are exposed in a first direction are described by a different field distortion model than the fields exposed in a second direction; a trending intrafield model in which parameters describing distortion per field are a function of a field sequence number. The additional element elaborates on the field distortion model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 19 , the method of claim 18, recites wherein the fitting comprises a combined fitting performed in combination with fitting an interfield model. The additional element elaborates on the fitting, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 20 , the method of claim 18, recites discloses wherein the field distortion model comprises one of: a per field model that describes the distortions of individual fields and are zero outside that field; a scan up scan down intrafield model in which the fields that are exposed in a first direction are described by a different field distortion model than the fields exposed in a second direction; a trending intrafield model in which parameters describing distortion per field are a function of a field sequence number. The additional element elaborates on the field distortion model, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 21 recites further comprising using the result of the fitting step(s) to define a grid in a positioning action of one or more substrate stages in a lithographic process. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 22 recites further comprising measuring the substrate to obtain the measurement data. The additional element elaborates on the measurement data, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 23, 25-28 have been canceled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 6, 8, 13-15, 17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) / (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by MENGER et al. US Pub No. 2017/0277045 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Menger ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Menger discloses A method for modeling measurement data over a substrate area relating to a substrate in a lithographic process (“The invention relates to methods and apparatus for calculating substrate model parameters, to methods and apparatus for controlling lithographic processing and to computer program products for implementing such methods and apparatus. The substrate model parameters can be used for example in models for correcting errors of overlay and alignment in lithographic processing.” [P.003]) , the method comprising: obtaining measurement data relating to the substrate (“receiving measurements of structures on at least one substrate” [P.0011]) ; and performing a combined fitting to fit to the measurement data (“In step 818 the high-order parameters 808 are combined with the low-order model parameters 816 in a conventional manner to define a high-order substrate model specific to the substrate being patterned.” [P.0127]. Also see Fig.8 for combined fitting method.) : at least a first interfield model which describes distortion over the substrate (“fitting of the interfield model across the substrate as a whole” [P.0013]) and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field (“The measurements of alignment data for example comprise X and Y positions of alignment targets formed in a fixed or nominally fixed relationship to the product patterns that are the product of the lithographic process. These alignment data, taken just before exposure, are combined and interpolated to provide parameters of an alignment model. These parameters and the alignment model will be used during the exposure operation to correct positions of patterns applied in the current lithographic step.” [P.0090]) ; wherein either: the at least a first interfield model comprises a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions (“the substrate model being defined as a combination of predefined basis functions” [P.0010]) or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional; or the method further comprises fitting a radial basis function model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of radial basis functions (“the processor in the metrology tool receives the measurements and calculates high-order substrate model parameters 808 by fitting the measurements to the extended model defined in step 802 [ ] In step 802, an extended high-order substrate model is defined using a combination of basis functions. The basis functions include at least one edge basis function for representing effects related to a substrate edge.” [P.0123, 0121]) or an elastic energy minimizing spline model which describes distortion over the substrate in terms of basis functions which minimize a certain model functional to a distortion residual of the combined fit of a different interfield model and the field distortion model . Regarding claim 6 , Menger discloses comprising performing the combined fitting to fit to the measurement data: the radial basis function model and a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field (Menger discloses the limitation in a least [P.0106-0108]) ; and the combined fit further comprises fitting a polynomial interfield model to the measurement data (“fitting with an interfield polynomial model and an intrafield polynomial model” [P.0101]) . Regarding claim 8 , Menger discloses comprising fitting the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model to a distortion residual of the combined fit of the interfield model and field distortion model, and the said interfield model comprises a higher order polynomial interfield model. (“plots 502′ and 504′ show residual errors (“residuals”) for the same products after fitting with an interfield polynomial model and an intrafield polynomial model ( i.e. field distortion model ). (The residuals are not necessarily on the same scale as the original errors). That is to say, the residuals in plots 502′ 504′ represent errors that remain uncorrected even after application of modern high-order correction models. At the edges of the wafers the magnitude of the arrows is larger and the direction can point radially inwards 502 or radially outwards 504. Thus, it can be seen from the residuals that fitting with a 5th order interfield polynomial” [P.0101]. Examiner interprets intrafield polynomial model as a field distortion model due to Claim 14 of the instant application.) Regarding claim 13 , Menger discloses wherein the combined fitting is performed on a combined measurement layout comprising measurement locations distributed over the substrate, at different intrafield locations per exposure field (“the present description refers primarily to so-called “interfield” substrate models, which describe positional deviations that are characteristic of locations across the substrate. In a real process, it is common also to model “intrafield” variations that are characteristic of locations within each field (target portion C). To determine the final position of applying a pattern, the interfield model and intrafield model can be combined in a well-known manner.” [P.0091]) . Regarding claim 14 , Menger discloses wherein the field distortion model comprises a polynomial intrafield model (“after fitting with an interfield polynomial model and an intrafield polynomial model.” [P.0101]) . Regarding claim 15 , Menger discloses wherein the field distortion model comprises an average field model which describes the intrafield content of the measurement data with a translation parameter per intrafield location (“A conventional alignment model might comprise four, five or six parameters, together defining translation, rotation and scaling of the ‘ideal’ grid, in different dimensions [ ] it is common also to model “intrafield” variations that are characteristic of locations within each field” [P.0090-91]). Regarding claim 17 , Menger discloses wherein the field distortion model comprises one of: a per field model that describes the distortions of individual fields and are zero outside that field (“the present description refers primarily to so-called “interfield” substrate models, which describe positional deviations that are characteristic of locations across the substrate. In a real process, it is common also to model “intrafield” variations that are characteristic of locations within each field (target portion C).” [P.0091]) ; a scan up scan down intrafield model in which the fields that are exposed in a first direction are described by a different field distortion model than the fields exposed in a second direction; a trending intrafield model in which parameters describing distortion per field are a function of a field sequence number. Regarding claim 21 , Menger discloses further comprising using the result of the fitting step(s) to define a grid in a positioning action of one or more substrate stages in a lithographic process (“These measurements are used in one embodiment to establish a so-called wafer grid, which maps very accurately the spatial distribution of alignment marks across the substrate, including any distortion relative to a nominal rectangular grid.” [P.0088]) . Regarding claim 22 , Menger discloses further comprising measuring the substrate to obtain the measurement data (“In step 804 offline metrology measurements of structures on substrates (220 in FIG. 2) that have been subjected to lithographic processing are performed using the metrology tool 240 of FIG. 2.” [P.0122]) . Regarding claim 24 , Menger discloses A non-transient computer program carrier comprising the computer program instructions therein, the instructions, when run on a suitable apparatus, configured to cause the apparatus to at least perform the method of claim 1 (“The apparatus may be arranged for loading a computer program product comprising computer executable code. This may enable the computer assembly, when the computer program product is downloaded, to implement the functions of the PCA apparatus and/or RCA apparatus as described above.” [P.0134]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENGER et al. US Pub No. 2017/0277045 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Menger ”) in view of LYULINA et al. US Pub No. 2012/0218533 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Lyulina ”) . Regarding claim 2 , Menger fails to specifically disclose wherein the radial basis function model comprises a polyharmonic spline model . However, Lyulina discloses wherein the radial basis function model comprises a polyharmonic spline model (“Two major RBF classes are given below: infinitely smooth (whose derivatives exist at each point) and splines (whose derivatives may not exist in some points). TABLE-US-00001 Piecewise smooth RBF Infinitely smooth RBF Polyharmonic splines” Lyulina [P.0044]) . Menger and Lyulina are analogous art as they both relate to lithographic apparatus and processes, particularly for semiconductor manufacturing, such as the claimed invention. Menger discloses “[t]he invention relates to methods and apparatus for calculating substrate model parameters, to methods and apparatus for controlling lithographic processing and to computer program products for implementing such methods and apparatus. The substrate model parameters can be used for example in models for correcting errors of overlay and alignment in lithographic processing” [P.0003]. And Lyulina discloses “[t]he present invention relates to a method of calculating model parameters of a substrate, a lithographic apparatus and an apparatus for controlling lithographic processing by a lithographic apparatus.” [P.0002]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Menger to include a polyharmonic spline model, as Lyulina discloses, which is advantageous since “1. the model has no free parameters that need manual tuning, automatic interpolation is feasible; 2. it is a fundamental solution of the two-dimensional biharmonic operator, 3. given a set of data points, a weighted combination of thin plate splines centered around each data point gives the interpolation function that passes through these points exactly while minimizing the so-called "bending energy."” Lyulina [P.0046-48]. Regarding claim 3 , the method of claim 2, Menger fails to specifically disclose discloses wherein the polyharmonic spline model comprises a thin plate spline model . However, Lyulina discloses wherein the polyharmonic spline model comprises a thin plate spline model (“For k=2 the polyharmonic spline is called thin plate spline (TPS)” Lyulina [P.0045]) . Lyulina discloses the method of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Menger as claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENGER et al. US Pub No. 2017/0277045 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Menger ”) in view of WERKMAN et al. WO 2020212057 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Werkman ”) . Regarding claim 4 , Menger fails to specifically disclose comprising including a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized in the fit of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model, where this regularization term at least depends on the parameters of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model. However, Werkman discloses comprising including a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized in the fit of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model , where this regularization term at least depends on the parameters of the radial basis function model or elastic energy minimizing spline model (“the optimization comprises minimizing a cost function between the metrology data and a combination of base functions, wherein the one or more group-specific correction parameters and one or more common correction parameters serve as weighting factors.” Werkman [P.0091]. The correction parameters are interpreted to include a regularization term because “The second (optional) term is a regularization term which tends to penalize larger correction coefficients” Werkman [P.0075]). Werkman is analogous art as it relates to processing of substrates for the production of semiconductor devices, such as the claimed invention. Werkman discloses “there is provided a method for determining a correction for an apparatus used in a process of patterning substrates” [P.0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Menger to include a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized, as Werkman discloses, in order “to help ensure that the patterning performed by the lithographic apparatus LA stays within a process window. The process window defines a range of values of a plurality of process parameters (e.g. two or more selected from dose, focus, overlay, etc.) within which a specific manufacturing process yields a defined result (e.g. a functional semiconductor device) - typically a range within which the values of the process parameters in the lithographic process or patterning process are allowed to vary while yielding a proper structure” Werkman [P.0037]. Regarding claim 5 , the method of claim 4, Menger fails to specifically disclose wherein the regularization term is equal to the functional that is minimized . However, Werkman discloses wherein the regularization term is equal to the functional that is minimized (“Equation (2) is an example of an implementation ( i.e. functional that is minimized ) [ ] The first term (when considered from left to right) of Equation (2) is a data fidelity term (e.g., per direction x and y) which seeks to provide correction coefficients which are co-optimized across all considered M groups g, where C L is a vector comprising the /th correction basis function. [ ] The second (optional) term is a regularization term which tends to penalize larger correction coefficients (e.g., it favors simpler/the simplest solutions and breaks degeneracy), wherein the matrix A 1 may be the identity matrix or may be configured to include weighting of certain correction coefficients.” Werkman [P.0075]. Note: Equation 2 can be set equal to the regularization term, resulting in claimed limitation.) Werkman discloses the limitations of claim 5 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Menger as claim 4. Regarding claim 9 , Wegner fails to specifically disclose further comprising including a regularization term which depends on field distortion model parameters, in a cost function that is minimized in the combined fitting. However, Werkman discloses further comprising including a regularization term which depends on field distortion model parameters, in a cost function that is minimized in the combined fitting (“the optimization comprises minimizing a cost function between the metrology data and a combination of base functions, wherein the one or more group-specific correction parameters and one or more common correction parameters serve as weighting factors.” Werkman [P.0091]. The correction parameters are interpreted to include a regularization term because “The second (optional) term is a regularization term which tends to penalize larger correction coefficients” Werkman [P.0075]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Menger to include a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized, as Werkman discloses, in order “to help ensure that the patterning performed by the lithographic apparatus LA stays within a process window. The process window defines a range of values of a plurality of process parameters (e.g. two or more selected from dose, focus, overlay, etc.) within which a specific manufacturing process yields a defined result (e.g. a functional semiconductor device) - typically a range within which the values of the process parameters in the lithographic process or patterning process are allowed to vary while yielding a proper structure” Werkman [P.0037]. Regarding claim 12 , the method of claim 9, Wegner fails to specifically disclose wherein the combined fitting with the regularization term included in the cost function that is minimized is used to fit data for which the combined fit without regularization would be underdetermined. However, Werkman discloses wherein the combined fitting with the regularization term included in the cost function that is minimized is used to fit data for which the combined fit without regularization would be underdetermined (“wherein the model is regularized to avoid degeneracy of the solution of the fitting” Werkman [P.0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wegner to include the regularized model of Werkman in order “to enable accurate simulations and predictions, and may provide feedback to the lithographic apparatus LA to identify possible drift” Werkman [P.0039] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENGER et al. US Pub No. 2017/0277045 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Menger ”) in view of WERKMAN et al. WO 2020212057 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Werkman ”), in further view of LYULINA et al. US Pub No. 20120218533 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Lyulina ”) . Regarding claim 10 , the method of claim 9, Wegner fails to specifically disclose wherein the regularization term which depends on the field distortion model parameters relates to bending energy of the field distortion model or to an integral of the square of the field distortion model over a field or the full wafer. However, Lyulina discloses wherein the regularization term which depends on the field distortion model parameters ( see Werkman claim 9 ) relates to bending energy of the field distortion model (“given a set of data points, a weighted combination of thin plate splines centered around each data point gives the interpolation function that passes through these points exactly while minimizing the so-called "bending energy." Lyulina [P.0048]) or to an integral of the square of the field distortion model over a field or the full wafer . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wegner to include a regularization term that relates to bending energy, as the combination of Werkman / Lyulina disclose, in order for “accurate function approximations” Lyulina [P.0049]. Regarding claim 18 , Merger discloses A method for modeling measurement data over a substrate area relating to a substrate in a lithographic process (“The invention relates to methods and apparatus for calculating substrate model parameters, to methods and apparatus for controlling lithographic processing and to computer program products for implementing such methods and apparatus. The substrate model parameters can be used for example in models for correcting errors of overlay and alignment in lithographic processing.” [P.003]) , the method comprising: obtaining measurement data relating to the substrate (“receiving measurements of structures on at least one substrate” [P.0011]) ; and performing a fitting to fit a field distortion model which describes distortion within an exposure field to the measurement data (“The measurements of alignment data for example comprise X and Y positions of alignment targets formed in a fixed or nominally fixed relationship to the product patterns that are the product of the lithographic process. These alignment data, taken just before exposure, are combined and interpolated to provide parameters of an alignment model. These parameters and the alignment model will be used during the exposure operation to correct positions of patterns applied in the current lithographic step.” [P.0090]) by minimizing a cost function comprising a regularization term which depends on parameters of the field distortion model, the said regularization term relating to bending energy of the field distortion model. Merger fails to specifically disclose by minimizing a cost function comprising a regularization term which depends on parameters of the field distortion model, the said regularization term relating to bending energy of the field distortion model. However, Werkman discloses by minimizing a cost function comprising a regularization term which depends on parameters of the field distortion model, the said regularization term relating to bending energy of the field distortion model (“the optimization comprises minimizing a cost function between the metrology data and a combination of base functions, wherein the one or more group-specific correction parameters and one or more common correction parameters serve as weighting factors.” Werkman [P.0091]. The correction parameters are interpreted to include a regularization term because “The second (optional) term is a regularization term which tends to penalize larger correction coefficients” Werkman [P.0075]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Menger to include a regularization term in a cost function that is minimized, as Werkman discloses, in order “to help ensure that the patterning performed by the lithographic apparatus LA stays within a process window. The process window defines a range of values of a plurality of process parameters (e.g. two or more selected from dose, focus, overlay, etc.) within which a specific manufacturing process yields a defined result (e.g. a functional semiconductor device) - typically a range within which the values of the process parameters in the lithographic process or patterning process are allowed to vary while yielding a proper structure” Werkman [P.0037]. Although, Werkman also fails to specifically disclose relating to bending energy of the field distortion model. However, Lyulina discloses relating to bending energy of the field distortion model (“given a set of data points, a weighted combination of thin plate splines centered around each data point gives the interpolation function that passes through these points exactly while minimizing the so-called "bending energy." Lyulina [P.0048]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wegner to include a regularization term that relates to bending energy, as the combination of Werkman / Lyulina disclose, in order for “accurate function approximations” Lyulina [P.0049]. Regarding claim 19 , the method of claim 18, Menger discloses wherein the fitting comprises a combined fitting performed in combination with fitting an interfield model (“According to principles of the present disclosure, one or more specific edge-related basis functions are added to the interfield substrate model that are designed to be more capable of describing the edge effect. Substrate model parameters are thus calculated using a combination of basis functions, the basis functions including at least one edge basis function related to a substrate edge.” [P.0108]) . Claim 20 , the method of claim 18, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 17 and is rejected under similar rationale. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: MIDDLEBROOKS (Method And Apparatus For Estimating Model Parameters Of And Controlling A Lithographic Apparatus By Measuring A Substrate Property And Using A Polynomial Model – US Pat. No 8947642 B2). “System and methods estimate model parameters of a lithographic apparatus and control lithographic processing by a lithographic apparatus.” [Abstract] ENGELEN et al. (Method Of Controlling A Lithographic Apparatus, Device Manufacturing Method, Lithographic Apparatus, Computer Program Product And Method Of Improving A Mathematical Model Of A Lithographic Process – US Pat. No US 9696635 B2). “a method of controlling a lithographic apparatus, a device manufacturing method, a lithographic apparatus, a computer program product for controlling a lithographic apparatus and a method of improving a mathematical model of a lithographic process.” [Col.1 Ln.20] YPMA et al. (Methods And Apparatus For Obtaining Diagnostic Information Relating To An Industrial Process – US Pat. No US 9946165 B2). “The invention relates to methods of obtaining diagnostic information relating to an industrial process. An example of an industrial process for which the method has been developed is a lithographic process” [Col.1 Ln.18] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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. /ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186 /RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 2 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 3 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 4 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 5 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 6 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 7 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 8 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 9 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 10 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 11 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 12 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 13 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 14 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 15 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 16 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 17 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 18 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 19 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 20 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 21 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 22 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 23 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 24 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 25 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 26 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 27 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 28 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 29 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 30 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 31 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 32 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 33 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 34 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 35 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 36 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 37 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 38 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 39 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 40 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/033,028 Page 41 Art Unit: 2186
Prosecution Insights