DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on June 27th, 2023. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claim 10-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 in view of Sawlani et al., US 2023/0049157.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 and in further view of Sethian, James A., and David Adalsteinsson. "An overview of level set methods for etching, deposition, and lithography development." ieee transactions on semiconductor manufacturing 10.1 (1997): 167-184.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 in view of Sawlani et al., US 2023/0049157 and in further view of Sethian, James A., and David Adalsteinsson. "An overview of level set methods for etching, deposition, and lithography development." ieee transactions on semiconductor manufacturing 10.1 (1997): 167-184.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19770463 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
This action is non-final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10:
a process tool for fabricating semiconductor wafers;
and a fabrication simulator configured to generate a voxel mesh to simulate a process operation of the process tool using an iterative process that updates the voxel mesh during the process operation using direction dependent processing rates for voxels in the voxel mesh, determine a parameter of the voxel mesh after simulating the process operation, and determine a parameter of the process tool based on the parameter of the voxel mesh.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-17 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. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
The above noted limitations in claim 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
For the process tool, see cf. 1, 13-14, ¶¶ 16-17. For the fabrication simulator cf. 1, 13-14, ¶¶ 16-17.
At issue is that neither of these have any particular structure that is clearly linked, let alone structure sufficient to perform the entire claimed functionality.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to remove such nonce terms, and instead amend the claim to expressly recite that this is a “computing device” with one or more processors and memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein when the processors executed instructions stored on the memory the computing device performs operations comprising a series of steps. Cf. 13-14, see ¶¶ 56-59.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See the above § 112(f) invocation and corresponding § 112(b) rejection including the citations to the disclosure in the § 112(b) rejection. See MPEP §2181(IV): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).” and MPEP 2181(II)(B): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to expressly include the subject matter of ¶ 50 which provides a practical application – to clarify, see example 45, claims 2 and 4, and also see ¶¶ 17 and 53, as the fabricating step with such particular operating recipe parameters in such an amendment should be affirmatively required in such amendments. To clarify, the technological problem in ¶ 50 is: “In some situations, during the forming of the epitaxial material 1015, reduced precursor gas flow can result in the formation of a void I020 in a bottom region of the opening I005.” – and the claim should positively require the particular steps that provide the solution to that particular problem, including the required performance of the solution in the fabricating of the semiconductor. Akin to example 45, claims 2 and 4, wherein the problem lied in the under-curing/overcuring (see discussion of claims 2 and 4 to clarify on this), wherein limitation (d) in claims 2 and 4 integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 10 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 18 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 10 and 18, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
defining a voxel mesh to represent a structure; defining a conformal surface mesh for the voxel mesh; - math calculations/relationships in textual form in the mathematical field of geometry, wherein this is meshing, i.e. dividing a region into a series of smaller regions, i.e. dividing a volumetric region of a structure (e.g. a cube) into a series of smaller cubes (the voxels, see ¶¶ 18-19). The conformal surface mesh is any meshing operation applied to a surface which conforms to the surface, e.g. dividing a square surface into a series of smaller surfaces.
determining direction dependent rates for voxels in the voxel mesh using the conformal surface mesh; See ¶ 21 – math calculations in textual form.
updating the voxel mesh based on the direction dependent rates; - updating the mesh, thus similar math calculations/relationships in geometry as above
iterating the defining of the conformal surface mesh, the determining of the direction dependent rates, and the updating of the voxel mesh to simulate a process operation; - repeating the above abstract idea, with a desired result.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
defining a voxel mesh to represent a structure;
defining a conformal surface mesh for the voxel mesh;
determining direction dependent rates for voxels in the voxel mesh using the conformal surface mesh;
updating the voxel mesh based on the direction dependent rates;
iterating the defining of the conformal surface mesh, the determining of the direction dependent rates, and the updating of the voxel mesh to simulate a process operation;
The above is a mental process, when read in view of the specification, but for the mere instructions to do it in a computer environment.
See fig. 2-4, and 6, and accompanying descriptions.
See figure 6, which shows that the voxel mesh may readily be represented in 2D as a square grid. From this a person is also readily able to mentally visualize this in 3D as a series of cubes. See ¶¶ 18-19
The claim places no requirements on what the surface mesh is comprised of nor how it is to be made, or what it is of.
With respect to doing this in semiconductor processing, a person is similarly able to mentally do this, such as for a simple product/structure, e.g. a simple etching operation to etch a trench, or a simple crystal growth operation – see ¶ 33. To clarify, take the example of a simple etching operation – a person is readily able to mentally visualize a cubic volume of space, e.g. the volume of semiconducting material to receive a trench, and define a smaller series of cubes in their mental visualization (simply a 3D grid of cubes that form that cubic volume), wherein physical aids would assist in the mental visualization (e.g. a tabular representation of the coordinates of each of the cubes, or a 2D plane drawing of a single layer of the cubes, with notations indicates the total number of layers, or a series of 2D plane drawings of squares representing each layer of voxels, or a drawing of a 3D perspective of the 3D volume of cubes. In this mental visualization, they can readily mentally visualize a subvolume of the cubes for the trench, e.g. such as for a certain range of coordinates. The conformal surface mesh is similarly simple, e.g. a single plane representing the semiconductor surface in the 3D cubic volume, divided into a series of squares.
For the direction dependent rates, see ¶ 21 – the calculation is simple enough a person is readily able to mentally do it with physical aids of pen, paper, and a calculator, as a mental evaluation. In addition, the equation simplifies in 2D (see ¶ 26) by removing the “k” indices. See ¶ 22 as well.
With respect to the updating and the iterating, see ¶¶ 30-33, which convey this is merely increasing/decreasing the number of elements in the meshes, e.g. “voxels decrease in number as processing continues” – which is simple enough to do mentally. E.g., the person does some simple rate calculations, determines how much of a volume of the material is etched/grown in a certain period of time, then goes back to their mental visualization. E.g. in the examples above, a tabular representation of the voxel mesh and conformal surface mesh would be a simple physical aid to this mental process. Specifically, they have a table representing the coordinates of every voxel in the voxel mesh, and a second table representing the coordinates of every square in the surface mesh. Assuming the mesh elements have a uniform size (e.g. 1 um x 1 um x 1 um for the voxel; 1 um x 1 um for the square conformal surface mesh), they can readily mentally evaluate, based on the growth/etch rates, how many mesh elements are added/removed, e.g. in etching, they could simply cross out in the tables which mesh elements were etched/removed, and re-visualize the voxel mesh, and re-draw the surface mesh, based on the tables.
The determining a parameter is no less abstract, e.g. from the above mental process, the person, e.g. a semiconductor processing engineer, is readily able to determine a parameter such as the processing time for the etch/growth operation, e.g. by performing the above mental process, until such a time when the desired structure is created based on the direction dependent rates and time intervals, e.g. when the trench is fully etched, and then use said time as the processing time (i.e. how long the etching/growth should be conducted for).
To summarize the above, at issue with this claim is the generality of each of the limitations, merely stating an act such as “updating” or “iterating the defining...the determining…” and so on without placing any requirements on what specifically is to be performed at that step, let alone a requirement in how it is to be done in a technological manner.
Claim 10 recites a similar abstract idea as claim 1 and is rejected under a similar rationale, wherein the “determine a parameter of the process tool based on the parameter of the voxel mesh.” is a mental evaluation/judgement given the generality of what is recited. Claim 18 recites a similar abstract idea, wherein it further limits the abstract idea of the direction dependent rate calculation to be based on contributions from nearest neighbors (cf. 6 and ¶ 22, then see ¶ 25) – i.e. in claim 18, the determining/calculation of the direction dependent rate is a math calculation in textual form.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Preamble of claim 18
The fabrication simulator in claim 10
Claim 1 does not recite a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for In re Prater
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Claim 10: a process tool for fabricating semiconductor wafers; and – this is generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use, given the generality of this limitation.
With respect to ¶ 54, the alleged improvement in ¶ 54 is provided solely by the abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” and MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").”
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
E.g. MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Preamble of claim 18
The fabrication simulator in claim 10
Claim 1 does not recite a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for In re Prater
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Claim 10: a process tool for fabricating semiconductor wafers; and – this is generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use, given the generality of this limitation.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is merely adding another step to the mental process, akin to the one discussed above
Claims 3-4 – merely further limiting the abstract idea
Claim 5 – math calculation in textual form. See ¶¶ 22-23, including: “a Hamilton-Jacobi solver” and the equation to be solved in ¶ 23
Claims 6-7 – math calculations in textual form. See ¶¶ 27-29 and 32.
Claim 8 – adding a math concept in geometry to the abstract idea (the surface normal/normal in geometry is a vector/line/ray or the like that is perpendicular to a given surface), and readily a mental process when the surface is simple.
Claim 9 – rejected under a similar rationale as the limitation in claim 18 discussed above
Claim 11 – further limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use (the growth process; see ¶¶ 17, 33 and 54, for the other processes contemplated), and limiting the abstract step of the rate determination/calculation to have positive results values calculated
Claim 12 – rejected under similar rationale as 11
Claim 13 – adding step of claim 1 to claim 10, the surface normal is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8, and further limiting the math calculation of the rate calculation
Claims 14-15 are rejected under similar rationales as parallel claims above
Claim 16-17 – rejected under a similar rationale as claims 5-7 above.
Claim 19 – rejected under similar rationale as claim 13 above
Claim 20 – rejected under similar rationale as claims 5-7 above
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991.
Regarding Claim 1
Scheckler teaches:
A method, comprising:
defining a voxel mesh to represent a structure;
defining a conformal surface mesh for the voxel mesh;
determining direction dependent rates for voxels in the voxel mesh using the conformal surface mesh;
updating the voxel mesh based on the direction dependent rates;
iterating the defining of the conformal surface mesh, the determining of the direction dependent rates, and the updating of the voxel mesh to simulate a process operation;
and determining a parameter of the voxel mesh after simulating the process operation.
Scheckler, see abstract, then see §§ 5.3-5.4
in particular, see fig. 5.1 which visually depicts the voxel mesh (the “cells” as clarified on below), and the “Surface” which is a conformal surface mesh (see below for details) that has “surface advancement” as it is a “Surface advancing through a grid of ….”):
PNG
media_image1.png
356
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein § 5.3 clarifies that: “Surface based topography simulation algorithms have superior accuracy and efficiency whereas cell based volume removal algorithms offer superior stability. It is also easy to test whether a point is inside a rectangular prismatic elements. It is natural to conclude that a proper combination of these representations might yield accurate and efficient process simulation. This is the philosophy behind the surface-cell hybrid. Fig. 5.1 shows a surface advancing through a 3D grid of rectangular prismatic elements organized in a regular array. As the surface advances, any grid elements behind the surface are updated to reflect the fact that the surface has past It is easy to find the cell containing any coordinate within the simulation region by simple arithmetic operations… The specific data representation is illustrated in Fig. 5.2. As the surface advances, the vertexes between the cells are updated as "material" or "air". To determine the status of any one cell, it is necessary to consider all eight cell vertexes. If all the vertexes are"material" the cell is in the bulk. If all the vertexes are "air" the cell is in air. If some of the vertexes are "material" and some are "air", the cell is a surface cell”
then see § 5.4 for further clarification: “The concept behind the algorithm is straightforward. To determine whether a grid vertex has been passed by the surface the algorithm checks whether the vertex is between the current surface and the surface as it was at some previous time step. If it is between these surfaces the vertex is set to "air", otherwise the cell status is left unchanged. To test all the grid vertexes that may have been affected, the region between the two surfaces is divided up into several volume elements. These elements are constructed by connecting the triangular facets [i.e. it’s a surface mesh] on the previous surface to the corresponding facets on the current surface as shown in Fig. 5.3. All the grid vertexes of interest are checked by testing the vertexes in the vicinity of each volume element. The procedure is illustrated schematically in 2D in Fig. 5.4…”
to clarify, there is a defined voxel mesh to represent a structure (this is the “cells” in the grid in fig. 5.1, wherein the structure is the “Bulk” cells and “Surface cell” (cf. 5.2 as well), wherein there is a conformal surface mesh of the “triangular facets” which represents the “surface” of the material during the “topography simulation” wherein as discussed in §§ 5.3-5.4 the simulates a semiconductor fabrication operation by iteratively updating the “Surface” mesh and the cells as the “surface” advances
to clarify, see in § 5.4, p. 125: “The cell update described above is designed for etching simulation It can be converted for use in deposition simulation by reversing the roles of material and air grid points. A process that includes both deposition and etching simultaneously can be modeled by breaking it up into an etching step followed by a deposition step for each time step and handling the cell update differently for each case.”
to clarify on the surface mesh being conformal, see fig. 5.13 lower figure which visually depicts this, similarly see fig. 5.15, also see figures in the example simulations cited below, e.g. fig. 6.9-6.13
then, see p. 140, last paragraph: “One way of looking at the surface-cell hybrid data representation combined with the facet-motion algorithm is to view the whole thing as a volume removal algorithm for topography simulation that accurately calculates the amount of material removed based on the correct surface orientation, in this way, the advantages of the cell-based approaches described in chapter 3 are preserved with the added benefit of accuracy and generality provided by the facet-motion algorithm of chapter 4.” – to clarify, see chapter 4,, in particular see § 4.7, subsections 4.7.6-4.7.7 which both discuss the details of the etch rate being “Directional”/”direction dependent” – e.g. in § 4.7.7: “Some processes show a strong directional dependence. For example, the angle dependence of the etch rate in ion milling is given in SAMPLE18 as… An important effect of the angular rate dependence in equation 4.16 is the appearance of facets at convex corners which contain the fastest etch rate direction…”
to further clarify, see § 6.1: “Chapters 4 and 5 present efficient surface evolution algorithms using the motion of triangular facets and efficient geometric operations using a surface-cell hybrid data structure… The algorithms of the previous chapters for directionally dependent surface advancement, shadowing, solid angle visibility, and surface reflection support the coupling of process physics and surface topography and are used to simulate the time evolution of 3D surfaces with the etch process models… This chapter uses a series of examples to illustrate the development of physical etch process models and their simulation using surface advancement and visibility algorithms… Directionally dependent crystal etching is also considered” – then, see § 6.2.2: “Before developing geometric models for the various etch rate components, the validity of relating orientation dependent etching to a velocity along the surface normal must be established… If the etch rate is given along the actual crystal normal then the trajectory of a point is parallel to the normal to the polar diagram of the reciprocal of the etch rate at the point of corresponding orientation. The result of this theorem is that the surface orientation will change as the surface evolves, but considering the growth to follow a path along the surface normal still gives the correct result since the change in surface orientation will alter the rate. The theorem was derived using crystal structures as a starting point, but it can be applied to any orientation dependent process.”- see § 6.2.3 to further clarify the directionally dependent rates of Scheckler are with respect to the “surface normal”, incl. fig. 6.1
then, see §§ 6.2.4-6.2.7, followed by § 6.2.8: “All the individual velocity terms may be summed together to give the etch velocity along the surface normal…” – see eq. 6.17 and surrounding description, similarly see § 6.4 incl. § 6.4.1 incl. equations 6.36-6.38 and surrounding description, and last paragraph: “If the various components have equivalent contributions to the overall etch rate, the maximum rate direction can be found by summing the maximum rate vectors due to each component” – wherein § 6.4.2 provides simulation examples with results [examples of determined parameters of the voxel mesh after the simulation], e.g. cf. 6.9-6.10 and accompanying description
also, see § 6.5 for another example wherein “The etch rate dependence on surface orientation is mathematically equivalent to incident angle dependence in ion milling, but with a different rate versus orientation function… The model begins by determining etch rates for several key crystallographic planes based on the geometry of the crystal lattice, atomic spacings, and the angles between bonds. The geometric model is then related to known experimental etch rate data. Finally an interpolation rule is applied to calculate the etch rates for all possible directions, by assuming that the etch slowness surface between extrema directions is nearly planar….” – e.g. see fig. 6.14 and page 175, last paragraph
as a point of clarity, note the rates are relative to the “surface normal”, and the “Surface” is the mesh as discussed above, i.e. the “surface normal” is the “normal” to the “surface” of mesh
for clarifying figures, also see figures 8.1 and 8.2-8.3 (in particular, see 8.3(b) for the iterative loop, noting the “Repeat until done” step at the end) – as clarified on in §8.2.2, in particular on page 215, ¶¶ 1-3
Regarding Claim 6
Sheckler teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
updating the voxel mesh comprises applying a stability operation for edge regions of the voxel mesh. (Sheckler, see § 4.5.9: “Unfortunately, this cannot guarantee success especially at very sharp corners, made up of many small triangles. The only recourse is to handle sharp comers as special cases, or to provide a method for removing erroneous surface loops. Methods for loop detection and removal are presented in chapter 5.” and p. 113, ¶ 3: “In the case of sharp comers, the intersection checking feature of the algorithm tends to
eliminate loops, but only if the time step is small and the corners are not too sharp. This points to the need for an effective deloop technique.” – corners are examples of edge regions (see instant ¶ 30), and see § 5.5.4 for the deloop technique used for an example of a stability operation, include seeing figures 5.12-5.13)
Regarding Claim 8
Sheckler teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the direction dependent rates comprises determining surface normal directions for the voxels based on the conformal surface mesh. (Sheckler, as cited above, for its “surface normal” used for the direction dependent rate calculations, and the Examiner’s note above that the “surface normal” is the “normal” to the “surface” of Sheckler which is the conformal surface mesh of Sheckler
Regarding Claim 9
Sheckler teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the direction dependent rate for a selected voxel of the voxels comprises determining contributions from nearest neighbors of the selected voxel. (Sheckler, see § 5.1: “Many processes are strongly affected by the shape of the surface. For some processes it is sufficient to consider the local shape, for example the surface orientation. Many other processes require information about the shape of the entire surface. The most common requirement is for visibility information. Frequently, one part of the surface will shadow other parts. Additionally, some surface regions will have a restricted view of the "sky" above the wafer. There may also be cases when it is necessary to determine when particles hit one part of the surface but are reflected onto other parts. These effects all vary the rate at which the surface evolves”
then, see § 5.5.1: “To see whether any other surface point is shadowed requiresnothing more than testing the cells along a line from the point to a source point as shown in Fig. 5.8. If any of the cells contains material, the point is shadowed. The longest test occurs when no shadow exists, and every cell along the line is checked. The very worst case occurs when the surface point is in one corner of the simulation region and the source point is in the opposite corner” – see fig. 5.8-5.9 to clarify, i.e. its detecting contributions of “shadowing” from the nearest adjacent cells – see § 5.5.1 for full details, wherein as per § 5.1 as cited above the rates for the surface to evolve will depend on the shadowing/restricted view of the sky (cf. 5.9 in § 5.5.1) – e.g. see figure 5.14-5.15 and § 5.6, e.g. see §6.2.5 for an example: , in particular equation 6.10-6.12, in particular in eq. 6.12: “To see whether any other surface point is shadowed requiresnothing more than testing the cells along a line from the point to a source point as shown in Fig. 5.8. If any of the cells contains material, the point is shadowed. The longest test occurs when no shadow exists, and every cell along the line is checked. The very worst case occurs when the surface point is in one corner of the simulation region and the source point is in the opposite corner”
Regarding Claim 18.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding Claim 19.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claims 1, 8, and 9 above.
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) 2-4, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 in view of Sawlani et al., US 2023/0049157
Regarding Claim 2
While Sheckler does not explicitly teach the following, Sheckler in view of Sawlani teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
determining at least one of an operating recipe parameter or a control parameter for a process tool based on the parameter of the voxel mesh. (Sheckler, as cited above, for a topography simulation in device fabrication,
as taken in view of Sawlani, abstract and cf. 1, 6-7 (noting in particular the use of “Simulation”) and cf. 8, to clarify, see ¶ 4: “Great effort is typically invested in high-fidelity modeling and simulation of semiconductor process reactors and device features to better understand physical and chemical mechanisms between the species ( e.g., in gas phase, aqueous or organic solvated phases, solid state) phase and associated surface kinetics on a substrate. A good understanding and predictability of such systems is very important for improving product design as well as optimizing the process conditions, e.g., tuning the semiconductor manufacturing tool parameters.” and ¶¶ 6-7: “Hybrids of physics-based and data-driven models, also known as hybrid models, provide an opportunity to construct relationships between various factors (generated in experiments or simulation datasets) and response variables that may not be directly coupled or have non-linear dependencies…As different models (high-fidelity simulations, data driven models, reduced-order models, etc.) are used to construct these relationships, the effective hybrid model can identify relationships not previously known. These hybrid models are cheaper to compute than high-fidelity physics based simulations and can span a large range of spatial and temporal scales…This approach aims to reduce the time spent between design, fabrication, and testing phases of a project, resulting in faster solutions and reduction in the cost of products…Embodiments presented utilize the varying disconnected datasets generated from physics-based simulations (e.g., high-fidelity CFD simulations, atomistic simulations), approximate methods (e.g., reduced-order models, approximate models), experimental data, and other data sources ( either as individual models or stacked models) to determine the collective impact on processing semiconductor features. The data obtained from these sources may be analyzed using machine-learning (ML) techniques to better predict process behaviors and expected results” - then, see ¶¶ 8, 26 and 29, including: “What is needed are reliable methods and systems that can quickly predict behaviors of different elements in the semiconductor manufacturing process in order to design better and faster semiconductor equipment and semiconductor manufacturing processes, as well as ¶¶ 33-36, then see ¶¶ 63 and 74
then, see ¶¶ 71-72: “During chamber design, different options can be explored ( e.g., changing showerhead hole distribution, the gap between the wafer and the showerhead), and the goal is to achieve certain metrics on the wafer, such as having uniform profiles. The designer develops with a configuration of the chamber (e.g., chamber knobs, geometries) and a recipe, and the system model 402 makes a prediction of the system behavior 408 that includes metrics on the performance of the wafer…. If the performance is not satisfactory, the designer can change certain parameters and repeat the process to see the effect, such as by changing one or more variables at a time (e.g., pressure, chemistry, timing). But using the ML models, this process is quick ( e.g., minutes or hours) instead of having to wait weeks or months for the results. The system model 402 is able to evaluate performance impact when making changes to the hardware or to the process recipe.” – see ¶ 75 to clarify
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Sheckler on a topography simulator for semiconductor processing simulation with the teachings from Sawlani on creating a hybrid model based on physics-based simulations of semiconductor processing so as to
The motivations to combine would have been that “…These hybrid models are cheaper to compute than high-fidelity physics based simulations and can span a large range of spatial and temporal scales …This approach aims to reduce the time spent between design, fabrication, and testing phases of a project, resulting in faster solutions and reduction in the cost of products… The data obtained from these sources may be analyzed using machine-learning (ML) techniques to better predict process behaviors and expected results” (¶¶ 6-7 as cited above) and “Using the system model 402 results in savings of wafer and chemicals from the process standpoint and minimizes expensive design iterations” (¶ 74) and “But using the ML models, this process is quick ( e.g., minutes or hours) instead of having to wait weeks or months for the results.” (¶ 72)
Regarding Claim 3
Sheckler teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the parameter of the voxel mesh comprises a presence of a void. (Sheckler, see § 7.3.2, including the last paragraph and fig. 7.7b: “A low density appears at the bottom of the feature in Rg. 7.7b, due to the microvoids when columns grow towards each other.” – cf. 7.6 and accompanying description to clarify, furthermore see § 10.2 for its suggestions of (under § 103, as the cited portion of § 10.2 are suggestions) ¶ 2: “Some of these topographies can be addressed through minor modification of the existing data structures, especially since the surface-cell hybrid can be applied to the problem of voids, tunnels, and non-planar material representations” and “There is still a need for more general topography descriptions which handle the follow ing cases in a more complete way: material voids, regions of material which become detached from the rest of the surface, islands of material completely surrounded by other materials, multiple non-planar layers.” and see page 301, second to last command: “Specifies etch rates in urn/sec for several layers. The layers begin from the bottom of the simulation region and each have a thickness specified in microns. If the etch model is directional both isotropic and directional rates foreach layer must be given.” – note, the etching is removing of material from the layers (i.e. the thickness reduces per the etch rate), also see p. 30: “crystalrates”: “sets the thickness (in urn) and etch rates along the listed directions (in um/s) for layer numlay” – and then it simulates the etching per the rate – to further clarify, cf. 4.38, which shows the resulting amount of material removed from two different etching rates, also see p. 111, ¶ 2 and cf. 4.39(a)
Regarding Claim 4
Sheckler teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the parameter of the voxel mesh comprises a layer thickness parameter. (Sheckler, § 8.2.4: “2) A rate array and material layer arrays store information about layer thicknesses, layer etch rates, and inhomogeneous material properties (including inhomogeneous etch rates).”)
Regarding Claim 10.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claims 1-2 above, over Sheckler in view of Sawlani as cited above.
Regarding Claim 11.
Sheckler teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the process operation comprises a material growth process, and the direction dependent processing rates are positive rates. (Sheckelr, abstract: “The program, SAMPLE-3D, is compatible with engineering workstations and allows practical simulation of etch lag, deposition and etching with density variation, silylation, ion milling with a rotating source, and other 3D problems.” – see discussions of Evaporation, Sputter Deposition, CVD, and the like starting on page 14, then see chapter 9, p. 245: “A simulation involving wet etching, dry etching, and metal deposition demonstrates a multistep example” – as detailed in § 9.7 – also, see chapter 7, including § 7.1: “Deposition simulation encounters many of the geometric effects already seen in etching simulation. The global flux distributions and arrival rates of materials depend on process conditions, which are independent of the local surface topography. At a point on the surface, however, shadows and sohd angle visibility restrict the arrival of deposited material. Surface orientation may also affect how fast and in what direction deposited layers grow”
Regarding Claim 12.
Sheckler teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the process operation comprises a material removal process, and the direction dependent processing rates are negative rates. (Sheckler, see the above citations for the etching simulations, as etching is material removal (i.e. negative rates as the material is being etched/removed))
Regarding Claim 13.
Sheckler teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the fabrication simulator is configured to:
generate a conformal surface mesh for the voxel mesh; determine a surface normal direction for a selected voxel of the voxels based on the conformal surface mesh; and determine a direction dependent processing rate for the selected voxel based on the surface normal direction. (Sheckler, as cited above teaches this – see claims 1 and 8 above)
Regarding Claim 14.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 15.
Rejected under a similar rationale as 4 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 and in further view of Sethian, James A., and David Adalsteinsson. "An overview of level set methods for etching, deposition, and lithography development." ieee transactions on semiconductor manufacturing 10.1 (1997): 167-184.
Regarding Claim 5
While Sheckler does not explicitly teach the following, Sheckler in view of Sethian teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
updating the voxel mesh comprises updating the voxel mesh using a Hamilton- Jacobi solving technique. (Sheckler, as cited above including its voxel mesh, and see the issues at corners in Sheckler as cited above for claim 6
taken in view of Sethian, abstract and § I: “Level set methods are numerical techniques for tracking evolving interfaces which naturally handle and are specifically designed for profiles which can develop sharp corners, change topology, and undergo orders of magnitude changes in speed as they move. They are based on solving a Hamilton–Jacobi type equation for a level set function, using techniques borrowed from hyperbolic conservation laws.” , ¶ 1, also note page 176, col. 1, ¶ 1: “The front is located by constructing the zero level set of ; in two dimensions it is represented by a collection of line segments; in three-dimensions by a collection of voxel elements, see [3] and [4].”
also, see § III, subsection F: ““…In this case, our scheme fails at places where the front has corners. …The simplest way of constructing difference approximation which account for nonconvex speed laws is to go back to our idea of a viscosity solution, and simply “smooth out” the corners so that sharp corners cannot occur. With sophisticated schemes (see [3] and [4]), the amount of smoothing can be limited to a few grid cells. Thus, a level set scheme which smoothes the corners is based on a Lax–Friedrichs method, and is given by [3] and [4]… We will need this scheme when we tackle complex sputter deposition and etching problems.” – also, note page 176, col. 1, ¶ 1: “The integrals are performed in a straightforward manner. The front is located by constructing the zero level set of ; in two dimensions it is represented by a collection of line segments; in three-dimensions by a collection of voxel elements, see [3] and [4].”””
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Sheckler on a topography simulator that had issues at corners (Sheckler, as cited for claim 6 above) with the teachings from Sethian on a particular method to smooth the corners. The motivation to combine would have been that “We will need this scheme when we tackle complex sputter deposition and etching problems” (§ III, subsection F) and “Due to the use of conservative upwind schemes, the method selects the correct entropy condition and maintains sharp corners where shocks in the tangent occurs; conversely, the correct rarefaction fan solution is built at outward-facing corners”
Regarding Claim 7
While Sheckler does not explicitly teach the following, Sheckler in view of Sethian teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the stability operation comprises one or more of a Lax-Friedrichs operation, a weighted non-oscillatory operation, or a total variance diminishing operation. (Sheckler, as cited above for claim 6, taken in view of Sethian § III, subsection F: “…In this case, our scheme fails at places where the front has corners. …The simplest way of constructing difference approximation which account for nonconvex speed laws is to go back to our idea of a viscosity solution, and simply “smooth out” the corners so that sharp corners cannot occur. With sophisticated schemes (see [3] and [4]), the amount of smoothing can be limited to a few grid cells. Thus, a level set scheme which smoothes the corners is based on a Lax–Friedrichs method, and is given by [3] and [4]… We will need this scheme when we tackle complex sputter deposition and etching problems.” – also, note page 176, col. 1, ¶ 1: “The integrals are performed in a straightforward manner. The front is located by constructing the zero level set of ; in two dimensions it is represented by a collection of line segments; in three-dimensions by a collection of voxel elements, see [3] and [4].””
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Sheckler on a topography simulator that had issues at corners (Sheckler, as cited for claim 6 above) with the teachings from Sethian on a particular method to smooth the corners. The motivation to combine would have been that “We will need this scheme when we tackle complex sputter deposition and etching problems” (§ III, subsection F) and “Due to the use of conservative upwind schemes, the method selects the correct entropy condition and maintains sharp corners where shocks in the tangent occurs; conversely, the correct rarefaction fan solution is built at outward-facing corners”
Regarding Claim 20.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claims 5,6 above.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckler, Edward William. Algorithms for three-dimensional simulation of etching and deposition processes in integrated circuit fabrication. University of California, Berkeley, 1991 in view of Sawlani et al., US 2023/0049157and in further view of Sethian, James A., and David Adalsteinsson. "An overview of level set methods for etching, deposition, and lithography development." ieee transactions on semiconductor manufacturing 10.1 (1997): 167-184.
Regarding Claim 16.
While Sheckler does not explicitly teach the following, Sheckler in view of Sethian teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein:
the fabrication simulator is configured to update the voxel mesh using a Hamilton-Jacobi representation; (See rejection of claim 5 above, this limitation rejected under a similar rationale, rationale to combine is the same as above)
and apply a stability operation for edge regions of the voxel mesh. (Sheckler, as was cited above for claim 6)
Regarding Claim 17.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 7 above
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1-20 of Application No. 19770463. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19770463 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The claims are identical, but for a slight difference in wording in the preambles of claims 19-20 that do not materially change the scope of what is claimed as they both “cover the same thing” (MPEP 608.01(m)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bär, E., J. Lorenz, and H. Ryssel. "3D simulation for sub-micron metallization." Microelectronic engineering 33.1-4 (1997): 397-405. Abstract, §§ 2.1-2.3
Bloomfield, Max O., David F. Richards, and Timothy S. Cale. "The use of conformal voxels for consistent extractions from multiple level-set fields." International Conference on Computational Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. Abstract, §§ 2-3.1
Bloomfield, Max O., Yeon Ho Im, and Timothy S. Cale. "Microstructure development and evolution." International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices, 2003. SISPAD 2003.. IEEE, 2003. Abstract, § II
Bloomfield, Max O., et al. "Development of microstructure in nanostructures and thin films." Nanotechnology. Vol. 5118. SPIE, 2003. Abstract, §§ 2.1-2.5
Bloomfield, Max O., David F. Richards, and Timothy S. Cale. "A computational framework for modelling grain-structure evolution in three dimensions." Philosophical Magazine 83.31-34 (2003): 3549-3568. Abstract, §§ 2.1-2.8
Bloomfield, Max Oliver. A computational framework for modeling grain structure development in three dimensions. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2007. Pages 18-19, 22, 25, 28-46
Bloomfield, M. O., et al. "Thermally induced stresses in 3D-IC inter-wafer interconnects: A combined grain-continuum and continuum approach." Microelectronic engineering 84.11 (2007): 2750-2756. Abstract, § II.
Fleischmann, P., et al. "Grid generation for three-dimensional process and device simulation." 1996 International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices. SISPAD'96 (IEEE Cat. No. 96TH8095). IEEE, 1996. § 2
Hossinger, A., Johann Cervenka, and Siegfried Selberherr. "A multistage smoothing algorithm for coupling cellular and polygonal datastructures." International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices, 2003. SISPAD 2003.. IEEE, 2003. Abstract, §§ 2-4
Hossinger, A., Johann Cervenka, and Siegfried Selberherr. "A multistage smoothing algorithm for coupling cellular and polygonal datastructures." International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices, 2003. SISPAD 2003.. IEEE, 2003. Abstract, §§ II-III.D
Klemenschits, Xaver. Emulation and simulation of microelectronic fabrication processes. Diss. Technische Universität Wien, 2022. Abstract, pages 26- 28, 39-41, 105-107
Kwon, Ui-Hui, and Won-Jong Lee. "Three-dimensional deposition topography simulation based on new combinations of flux distribution and surface representation algorithms." Thin Solid Films 445.1 (2003): 80-89. § 2.2
Leitner, E., et al. "3D TCAD at TU Vienna." 3-Dimensional Process Simulation. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1995. 136-161. §§ 2.1-3.1, 4-4.3
Lorenz, J., et al. "3D simulation of topography and doping processes at FhG." 3-Dimensional Process Simulation. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1995. 109-135. Abstract, §§ 2.2-2.3, including p. 113
Mlekus, R., et al. "Polygonal geometry reconstruction after cellular etching or deposition simulation." Simulation of Semiconductor Devices and Processes: Vol. 6. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1995. 50-53. Abstract, § 2
Montoliu, Carles, et al. "Level set implementation for the simulation of anisotropic etching: Application to complex MEMS micromachining." Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 23.7 (2013): 075017. Abstracti cf. 1-2 and accompanying description.
Pyka, Wolfgang, et al. "Three-dimensional simulation of HPCVD-linking continuum transport and reaction kinetics with topography simulation." IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 18.12 (1999): 1741-1749. §§ II.A-E
Scheckler, Edward W., and Andrew R. Neureuther. "Models and algorithms for three-dimensional topography simulation with SAMPLE-3D." IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 13.2 (1994): 219-230. §§ II-IV
Schroder, H., et al. "Convex corner undercutting of {100} silicon in anisotropic KOH etching: The new step-flow model of 3-D structuring and first simulation results." Journal of Microelectromechanical systems 10.1 (2001): 88-97. §§III including subsection A
Strasser, E., and S. Selberherr. "A general simulation method for etching and deposition processes." Simulation of Semiconductor Devices and Processes: Vol. 5. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1993. 357-360. Abstract, §§ 2-3
Strasser, Ernst, and Siegfried Selberherr. "Algorithms and models for cellular based topography simulation." IEEE transactions on computer-aided design of integrated circuits and systems 14.9 (1995): 1104-1114. §§ I- 3
Tan, Zhiqiang, et al. "CFD-Micromesh: A fast geometric modeling and mesh generation tool for 3D microsystem simulations." Design, Test, Integration, and Packaging of MEMS/MOEMS. Vol. 4019. SPIE, 2000. Abstract, § II
Toifl, Alexander. Numerical methods for three-dimensional selective epitaxy and anisotropic wet etching simulations. Diss. Technische Universität Wien, 2021. Abstract, pages 35-48
Watiez, Noé, et al. "Finite element mesh generation for nano-scale modeling of tilted columnar thin films for numerical simulation." IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022. Abstract, § 3.2
Weiß, Sebastian. "Fast Voxel-Based Hydraulic Erosion." (2016). Bachelor’s Thesis in Informatics. Technical University of Munich. Abstract, pages 8 and 29.
Zhou, Zai-Fa, et al. "A novel 3-D dynamic cellular automata model for photoresist-etching process simulation." IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 26.1 (2007): 100-114. Abstract, §§ I-II.B, cf. 10 and accompanying description
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights