DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,571,806 B2 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,733,610 B2, both issued to Tel et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 18/233263 are directed to the same invention of the patented claims of US 10,571,806 B2 and US 11,733,610 B2, both issued to Tel et al. As such, the claims of application 18/233263 are met by the patented claims of US 10,571,806 B2 and US 11,733,610 B2. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16 and 29 recites a method / a non-transitory computer program product comprising machine-readable instructions therein that comprises the step of estimating a characteristic that will be imparted to a substrate to be processed by an etch tool and one or more other process apparatuses and configuring the device fabrication process and/or providing a signal representing the characteristic. This is a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to determine an outcome and therefore recites the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the device fabrication process manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the device fabrication process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claims 16 and 29 recites a hardware computer system to perform the steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer element do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply
implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 16 and 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer elements only provide for the implementing of mental process on a computer. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the device fabrication process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the device fabrication process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the device fabrication process is a well-known method.
Dependent claims 17-28 and 30-35 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 16 and 29 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 17-28 and 30-35 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which also falls within the mental processes or mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by David [US 2016/0148850 A1].
Regarding claims 16 and 29, David discloses a method (paragraph 0002]) / a non-transitory computer program product comprising machine-readable instructions therein (paragraph [0026], see also Figs. 2-12), comprising:
estimating, by a hardware computer system, a characteristic that will be imparted to a substrate to be processed by one or more process apparatuses by combining one or more values of one or more contributions to the characteristic by the one or more process apparatuses with one or more values of the characteristic (paragraphs [0034], [0039], [0043]-[0045] and [0047]) at least one of the one or more contributions to the characteristic being a first contribution of a chamber of an etch tool configured to etch one or more etchable layers and being a contribution separate from a second contribution to the characteristic by one or more other process apparatuses, and the first contribution representing an effect of the chamber of the etch tool on the characteristic after processing of a substrate by the chamber of the etch tool: and configuring the device fabrication process based on the estimated characteristic and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the estimated characteristic to a system for use in configuration of the device fabrication process (paragraphs [0071]-[0085], [0103]-[0104] and [0119], see also Figs. 2-12).
Regarding claims 17-28 and 30-35, David discloses wherein the characteristic is a property of a pattern on an etched substrate (as shown in Figs, 3-5), wherein the property is a geometric asymmetry of the pattern (paragraph [0108]), wherein the property is a critical dimension of the pattern or a sidewall angle of the pattern (paragraphs [0079] and [0104]), wherein the characteristic is a fingerprint of the property across the etched substrate, wherein the first contribution is obtained from a model having a property of the one or more etchable layers as an input, further comprising adjusting one or more variables of the etch tool to reduce the first contribution, wherein the one or more variables are an operating temperature and/or etching rate (paragraphs [0043], [0075], [0104]-[0106] and [0119]), wherein the adjusting compensates at least partially the second contribution, wherein the second contribution is associated with a lithographic apparatus and/or a deposition tool, further comprising adjusting one or more variables of the chamber of the etch tool to match the second contribution, wherein the second contribution is a contribution from another chamber of the etch tool or a chamber of another etch tool, wherein the adjusting targets to reduce a deviation of the characteristic from a target value of the characteristic (paragraphs [0071]-[0085], see also Figs. 2-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “configuring the device fabrication process based on the estimated characteristic and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the estimated characteristic to a system for use in configuration of the device fabrication process”, is not an abstract idea, but rather at least recite a specific practical application, see pages 6-7 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the device fabrication process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the device fabrication process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the device fabrication process is a well-known method.
Further, Applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach “the first contribution representing an effect of the chamber of the etch tool on the characteristic after processing of a substrate by the chamber of the etch tool”, see page 8 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, David teaches where “the etch process parameters can be used as inputs in determining the lithography tool control. Etch tool process parameters can be used to predict the etch rate or final etch depth” (paragraph [0119]).
As such, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 101/102 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882