DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a Markush method of identifying one or more dominant asymmetry modes from a plurality of asymmetry modes, each asymmetry mode relating to asymmetry of a physical characteristic in an alignment mark, with the following two groupings of steps:
A1: obtaining alignment data relating to measurement of alignment marks on at least one substrate using a plurality of alignment conditions;
A2: identifying, by a hardware computer system, one or more dominant orthogonal components of the alignment data, the one or more dominant orthogonal components comprising a number of orthogonal components which together describes a certain amount of variance in the alignment data; and
A3: determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if it corresponds to an expected asymmetry mode shape which best matches one of the one or more said dominant orthogonal components; or
B1: for each known asymmetry mode: determining, by a hardware computer system, a sensitivity metric; and
B2: determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if the said sensitivity metric is above a sensitivity threshold.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method for gathering data and applying mathematical functional relationships, then determining information from those and mathematical functional relationships. Claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories (a process).
Step 2A, prong one: Limitation A2 is identifying dominant orthogonal components of the alignment data. As disclosed, this step is performing component analysis on the data (see [0054] of the specification). This action is a mathematical concept where gathered data is used in a mathematical calculation to provide statistical data, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Limitation A3 is determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if it corresponds to an expected asymmetry mode shape which best matches one of the one or more said dominant orthogonal components. Analyzing data to determine a dominant mode extracted from modeling, ranking and Jacobian matrix (see [0055]-[0060] of the specification) is a mental process of determination optimized by use of a mathematical concept and is an abstract idea.
Limitation B1 is determining a sensitivity metric which is disclosed a mathematical concept (see [0062]) is a mental process of determination optimized by use of a mathematical concept and is an abstract idea.
Limitation B1 is determining a dominant mode based on a metric being above a threshold. Differentiating whether a metric is above or below a threshold is a mental process and is an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two:
“[I]dentifying one or more dominant asymmetry modes from a plurality of asymmetry modes, each asymmetry mode relating to asymmetry of a physical characteristic in an alignment mark,” as recited in the preamble, is not an application, only a limitation on the relationship of the asymmetry mode to an alignment mark. There is no improvement of the functioning of the hardware system recited in limitations A2 or B1 or an improvement of the photolithographic arts because there is no practical application into that art, such as, “applying the set of correction weights to an alignment measurement of a substrate performed with a plurality of illumination settings to obtain a corrected alignment measurement” as recited in claim 13.
Limitation A1 gathers alignment data relating to measurement of alignment marks on at least one substrate using a plurality of alignment conditions. The data gathering is an extra insignificant activity because it contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g)) and does integrate the exception into any practical application.
Limitations A2 and B1 are performed by computer hardware. The claimed limitations are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitations A3 and B2 do not recite any limitation that integrates the exception into practical application.
Step 2B: Limitation A1, data gathering is an extra insignificant activity and contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g)). The inventive concept lies in the exception and not any combination of any additional elements or the claim as a whole. Limitation A1 does not represent significantly more than the exception.
Limitations A2 and B1 are performed by computer hardware. The claimed limitations are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitations A3 and B2 do not recite any limitation beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer program carrier comprising computer program therein, the computer program, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform the method steps that correspond to the step as recited in claim 1. The subject matter eligibility analysis for the steps recited in claim 16 is the same as for claim 1. The claimed limitations are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-12 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula. Claims 2-12 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-12 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 18 and 19 recite an alignment sensor and lithographic apparatus that comprise the computer for program carrier of claim 16.
The use of an alignment apparatus or metrology device in the context of lithography to perform an alignment method is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (known sensors, widely used, see [0005] of the specification) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites a metrology device for performing the method of claim 1 without providing description of how the method is performed by the device or integrated into practical application.
The use of an alignment apparatus or metrology device in the context of lithography to perform an alignment method is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (known sensors, widely used, see [0005] of the specification) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 16. Instructions to perform a method embodies on a computer program carrier are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which courts have found not to be enough to qualify as significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ypma et al. [US 2016/0246185] in view of Bijnen [US 2018/0348654].
For claim 1, Ypma teaches a method of identifying one or more dominant asymmetry modes relating to asymmetry of an alignment mark (mark deviation data is used to identified component vectors having reference fingerprints that are correlated with deformation data of the mark, see [0092], [0098], [0142], and [0181]-[0183]), the method comprising either: steps A):
obtaining alignment data relating to measurement of alignment marks on at least one substrate using a plurality of alignment conditions (color-to-color analysis using different wavelengths, see [0142] and different operating modes, see [0180]);
identifying, by a hardware computer system (see [0224]), one or more dominant orthogonal components of the alignment data, the one or more dominant orthogonal components comprising a number of orthogonal components which together describes a certain amount of variance in the alignment data (component vector PC1 determination applied to alignment data, see Figs. 16 and 17 and [0174]-[0180]); and
determining, by a hardware computer system (see [0224]), an asymmetry mode as dominant if it corresponds to an expected asymmetry mode shape which best matches one of the one or more said dominant orthogonal components (identifying mark asymmetry associated with certain fingerprint, see [0142] and [0181]-[0182]); or
steps B): for each known asymmetry mode: determining a sensitivity metric; and determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if the said sensitivity metric is above a sensitivity threshold.
Ypma fails to explicitly teach a plurality of asymmetry modes, each asymmetry mode relating to a physical characteristic of an alignment mark.
Bijnen teaches a plurality of asymmetry modes, each asymmetry mode relating to a physical characteristic of an alignment mark (fingerprints associated with particular deformation patterns, see Fig. 4 and [0083]-[0087], and [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of fingerprint references associated with a plurality of specific physical mark deformations as taught by Bijnen in the library of fingerprints as taught by Ypma in order to identify specific deformations to make specific process or data processing corrections.
For claim 16, Ypma teaches a non-transitory computer program carrier comprising a computer program therein, the computer program, when executed by a computer system (see [0090] and [0224]-[0231]), configured to cause the computer system to perform the method of claim 1.
For claim 2, Ypma teaches steps A) and wherein the number of dominant orthogonal components comprises the minimum number of orthogonal components which together describes a certain amount variance in the alignment data (a number of component vectors have been identified, see [0118]-[0119]).
For claim 4, Ypma teaches the alignment data comprises color-to-average data (color to color analysis, see [0142]) comprising a difference of each alignment value relating to a respective one of the said illumination conditions (measurement over different colors, see [0180]) and an average alignment value (normalizing the components by subtracting an average/mean, see [0113]) over all illumination conditions.
For claim 5, Ypma teaches the determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if it corresponds to an expected asymmetry mode shape which best matches one of the one or more dominant orthogonal components comprises comparing each orthogonal component to a library of expected asymmetry mode shapes, each corresponding to at least one asymmetry mode (matching vectors to the fingerprint, see [0092], [0098], [0128], [0140], [0180]-[0182]).
For claim 6, Ypma teaches comprising triggering an update for the library should no good match be found for an orthogonal component within the library (triggering update, see [0134]).
For claim 18, Ypma teaches an alignment sensor (AS, see Fig. 1) comprising the computer program carrier of claim 16.
For claim 19, Ypma teaches a lithographic apparatus (LA, see Fig. 1) comprising: a patterning device support (MT) for supporting a patterning device; a substrate support (WT) for supporting a substrate; and the alignment sensor (AS) of claim 18.
For claim 20, Ypma teaches a metrology device (AS, see Fig. 1) configured to perform the method of claim 1.
For claim 21, Ypma teaches the instructions are configured to cause the computer system to perform A) (see [0090] and [0224]-[0231]).
For claims 3 and 7, Ypma teaches determining the number of orthogonal components which together describes a certain amount variance in the alignment data (a number of component vectors have been identified, see [0118]-[0119]), but fails to explicitly teach determining the number of orthogonal components required to explain a certain threshold percentage of variance or determining a maximum variation range for asymmetry variation for each dominant asymmetry mode.
Ypma teaches paragraph [0118] that operator or designer select the number of component vectors that captures the desired variance.
Variance range used for selection of the component vectors is a result effective parameter that is selected during design of the component analysis for providing optimization of alignment error correction.
According to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. §2144.05) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum ranges of the variance for providing optimization of alignment error correction.
Claims 8, 9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ypma in view of Bijnen as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and in further view of Bhattacharyya et al. [US 2018/0088470].
For claims 8, 9, and 22, Ypma fails to teach steps B) for each known asymmetry mode: determining a sensitivity metric; and determining an asymmetry mode as dominant if the said sensitivity metric is above a sensitivity threshold, obtaining an alignment mark model for modeling performance of an alignment mark; and using the alignment mark model to determine the sensitivity metric, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the computer system to perform B), or wherein determining a maximum variation range comprises: obtaining an alignment mark model for modeling performance of an alignment mark; using the alignment mark model to determine a sensitivity metric or Jacobian of each asymmetry mode; and determining the maximum range from the sensitivity metric or Jacobian.
Bhattacharyya teaches B) for each known asymmetry mode: determining a sensitivity metric (overlay sensitivity, see [0125], applicable to alignment, see [0191]); and determining an asymmetry mode (structural asymmetry related to measurement sensitivity, see [0104]-[0114]) as dominant if the said sensitivity metric is above a sensitivity threshold (measurement recipe based on sensitivity within threshold, see [0125]), obtaining an alignment mark model for modeling performance of an alignment mark (target simulated, see [0116]); and using the alignment mark model to determine the sensitivity metric (simulation yields sensitivity, K, see [0117]), wherein the instructions are configured to cause the computer system to perform B) (see [0201]-[0202]), or wherein determining a maximum variation range comprises: obtaining an alignment mark model for modeling performance of an alignment mark (target simulated, see [0116]); using the alignment mark model to determine a sensitivity metric or Jacobian of each asymmetry mode (simulation yield sensitivity, K, see [0117]); and determining the maximum range from the sensitivity metric or Jacobian (measurement recipe based on sensitivity within threshold, see [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the selection of measurement mode based on the sensitivity of the measurement relative an asymmetry of the target as taught by Bhattacharyya in the computer implemented method as taught by Ypma in order to ensure substrate measurement recipes having increased measurement accuracy.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ypma in view of Bijnen and Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bao et al. [US 2004/0039473].
For claim 10, the combination of Ypma and Bhattacharyya, Bhattacharyya teaches the using the alignment mark model to determine the sensitivity metric comprises using the alignment mark model to determine the sensitivity metric of each said asymmetry mode (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to teach the sensitivity is represented by a Jacobian.
Bao teaches the sensitivity is represented by a Jacobian (see [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Jacobian as taught by Bao to represent the sensitivity as taught by Bhattacharyya in the combination of Ypma and Bhattacharyya, because the Jacobian is an art recognized representation of a sensitivity that is associated with target profile parameter and could readily be implemented in a mathematical determination of a measurement recipe that is based on sensitivities.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ypma in view of Bijnen as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and in further view of Tinnemans et al. [US 2015/0227061].
For claims 11 and 12, Ypma fails to teach using the dominant asymmetry mode to determine a set of correction weights to correct alignment data, wherein the determining a set of correction weights comprises determining the set of weights such that they maximize alignment accuracy and/or minimize a mark sensitivity metric over a respective maximum range of process variations when applied to an alignment measurement.
Tinnemans teaches using the dominant asymmetry mode to determine a set of correction weights to correct alignment data (correcting alignment positions using weighting based on asymmetry, see Figs. 10-11 and [0188]), wherein the determining a set of correction weights comprises determining the set of weights such that they maximize alignment accuracy (highest reliability, see [0110] and [0188]) and/or minimize a mark sensitivity metric over a respective maximum range of process variations when applied to an alignment measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the correction weights as taught by Tinnemans in the alignment as taught by Ypma in order to ensure improved accuracy due to reduced asymmetry sensitivity.
For claims 13 and 14, Ypma teaches applying the set of correction weights to an alignment measurement of a substrate performed with a plurality of illumination settings to obtain a corrected alignment measurement and performing the alignment measurement (a different mode of measurement of the marks may be selected that will be less prone to this deformation, so as to improve the accuracy of the positional measurements, marks may have their weighting increased or decreased in the calculation of the alignment model, see [0181]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7-9, regarding claim 1-12, 16, and 18-22, that a “method of identifying one or more dominant asymmetry modes from a plurality of asymmetry modes, each asymmetry mode relating to asymmetry of a physical characteristic in an alignment mark” is a claimed practical application, because, when viewed as a whole, the practical application is the ability to determine a particular type of physical characteristic of an alignment mark (which is no different in kind than a measuring a physical characteristic, which surely must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claim is analysis of data relating to a measurement of a physical characteristic. Specifying the type of data is not an application or a measurement. Limiting a type of data is generally linking the judicial exception to field of use in a data gathering step, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and (h). Further, there is no claim language that applies the claimed dominant mode determined as a result of the component analysis of the data. The claim does not provide the improvement because there is no application of the improvement.
The Applicant argues on page 9, regarding claims 1 and 16, that Ypma does not describe determining a type of deformation (from many different types of deformations) in an alignment mark, and merely indicates that there is a deformation associated with a mark, but in no way provides any indication which of many types of deformation are in an alignment mark.
Applicant’s argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Bijnen is relied upon to teach a asymmetry modes associated many types of deformation are in an alignment mark
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759