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 .
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 without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 15 recites a method / a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions therein for optimizing a target layout for a patterning device and a sampling scheme for measuring the targets of the target layout exposed on a substrate comprising the steps of co-optimizing, the target layout and the sampling scheme to obtain an optimized target layout and an optimized sampling scheme for measuring the targets and configuring the manufacturing process and/or providing a signal representing to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to characterize a process and therefore recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claims 1 and 15 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 1 and 15 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 manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Claims 16 and 20 recites a method / a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions therein for optimizing a target layout for a patterning device and a sampling scheme for measuring the targets of the target layout exposed on a substrate comprising the steps of obtaining interfield data of a parameter of interest across a substrate; obtaining intrafield data of the parameter of interest across one or more exposure fields of the substrate; obtaining substrate layout data and optimizing target layout for the patterning device. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to optimize a process and therefore recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea, and configuring the manufacturing process and/or providing a signal representing to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to characterize a process and therefore recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claims 16 and 20 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 20 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 manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-19 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 and 16 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-14 and 17-19 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 measurement feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “configuring a physical measurement or manufacturing process based on the optimized target layout or optimized sampling scheme, or providing a signal representing, or based on, the optimized target layout or optimized sampling scheme to a system for use in configuration of a physical measurement or manufacturing process”, is not an abstract idea, but rather at least recite a specific practical application, see pages 8-9 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 101 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
Prosecution Insights