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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dimension" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of furthering prosecution, “the dimension” will be viewed as “the characteristic dimension of the cross-sectional shape”
Claims 2-4 are rejected at least on their dependency of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dimension" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of furthering prosecution, “the dimension” will be viewed as “the characteristic dimension of the cross-sectional shape”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the dimension" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of furthering prosecution, “the dimension” will be viewed as “the characteristic dimension of the cross-sectional shape”
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.
(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.
Claims 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okuyama et al, US 20220139788, hereafter ‘Okuyama’
Regarding claim 5, Okuyama discloses : A search method using machine learning to search for an etching condition that brings a processing result by a plasma etching apparatus to a target shape, comprising: a first step of measuring a characteristic dimension of a cross-sectional shape(Image recognition models used to measure dimension of semiconductor based on a cross-sectional image of the semiconductor device[0051]); after the first step, a second step of creating a template of the target shape in the cross- sectional shape obtained from the dimension(Preliminary step of using cross-sectional SEM image to learn a shape of a region[0054]); and a third step of comparing a difference between the template and the cross-sectional shape using a normalized metric, the method using, as one of objective variables, an evaluation result of an electron microscopic image obtained by execution of the third step(Difference determined by using a sum of squares of an error between the goal output parameter(template) and the output parameter(process result)[0083-0084] wherein the processed result is from a cross-sectional image using a scanning electron microscope[0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Okuyama discloses : A search system using machine learning to search for an etching condition that brings a processing result by a plasma etching apparatus to a target shape, the system performing: a first step of measuring a characteristic dimension of a cross-sectional shape(Image recognition models used to measure dimension of semiconductor based on a cross-sectional image of the semiconductor device[0051]); after the first step, a second step of creating a template of the target shape in the cross- sectional shape obtained from the dimension(Preliminary step of using cross-sectional SEM image to learn a shape of a region[0054]); and a third step of comparing a difference between the template and the cross- sectional shape using a normalized metric, the system using, as one of objective variables, an evaluation result of a microscopic image obtained by execution of the third step(Difference determined by using a sum of squares of an error between the goal output parameter(template) and the output parameter(process result)[0083-0084] wherein the processed result is from a cross-sectional image using a scanning electron microscope[0062]).
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosaki et al, US 20060091309, hereafter ‘Oosaki’, in view of Schwarzband et al, US 20160035076, hereafter ‘Schwarzband’.
Regarding claim 1, Oosaki discloses : An evaluation method that evaluates a difference between a target shape and a cross-sectional shape of an electron microscopic image, comprising: a first step of measuring a characteristic dimension of the cross-sectional shape(Fig. 5, image profile created from scanning electron microscope image [0069]);
Oosaki does not discloses : after the first step, a second step of creating a template of the target shape in the cross- sectional shape obtained from the dimension; and a third step of comparing a difference between the template and the cross-sectional shape using a normalized metric.
However, in the same field of endeavor Schwarzband teaches : after the first step, a second step of creating a template of the target shape in the cross- sectional shape obtained from the dimension(computer-aided design(CAD) data from a scanning electron microscope are process to CAD data in order to generate a simulated image[0026]) ; and a third step of comparing a difference between the template and the cross-sectional shape using a normalized metric(Processor applies a normalized cross correlation to compare actual and simulated height maps [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Schwarzband to Oosaki to have a normalized metric to compare a template and a cross-sectional shape.
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosaki et al, US 20060091309, hereafter ‘Oosaki’, in view of Schwarzband et al, US 20160035076, hereafter ‘Schwarzband’ in further view of Murakami et al, US 20130322737, hereafter ‘Murakami’ .
Regarding claim 2, Oosaki as modified by Schwarzband discloses : The evaluation method according to claim 1.
Oosaki as modified by Schwarzband does not disclose : wherein the dimension includes a maximum width of the cross-sectional shape and a maximum depth of the cross-sectional shape, and the template is a rectangle formed based on the maximum width and the maximum depth.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murakami teaches : wherein the dimension includes a maximum width of the cross-sectional shape and a maximum depth of the cross-sectional shape, and the template is a rectangle formed based on the maximum width and the maximum depth(Evaluation value calculated from maximum value of correlation value. For a template T(x,y), a longitudinal size is height and transverse size is width[0104-0105]. Template may have differed longitudinal and transverse size indicating a rectangle [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of to have a template based on the maximum height and width of a cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 3, Oosaki as modified by Schwarzband and Murakami discloses : The evaluation method according to claim 2.
Murakami further teaches : wherein a difference in area between the rectangle and the cross-sectional shape is used as the metric(Evaluation value calculated by area of background part of a template and area of interconnection part [0100].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Murakami to Oosaki and Schwarzband to have a difference in area between the rectangle and cross-sectional shape be a metric.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosaki et al, US 20060091309, hereafter ‘Oosaki’, in view of Schwarzband et al, US 20160035076, hereafter ‘Schwarzband’ in further view of Murakami et al, US 20130322737, hereafter ‘Murakami’ and in further view of Rucklidge et al, US 5999653, hereafter ‘Rucklidge’.
Regarding claim 4 Oosaki as modified by Schwarzband and Murakami discloses : The evaluation method according to claim 2.
Oosaki as modified by Schwarzband and Murakami does not disclose : wherein a shortest distance among distances from a corner of the rectangle to the cross-sectional shape is used as the metric.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rucklidge teaches : wherein a shortest distance among distances from a corner of the rectangle to the cross-sectional shape is used as the metric(Hausdorff distance between two set used to determine if a pattern and an image matches [Col. 2, line 26-57]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Rucklidge to Oosaki, Schwarzband, and Murakami to have the shortest distance from one point to another to be used as a metric.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure :
US 20240054669 : Method of determining 3D data using machine learning models
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-3 PST.
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, CHAD DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897