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 § 112
Claim Interpretation
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: an input section for inputting, a recipe proposal section that proposes, a calculation section that calculates, and a display section that displays in claims 1-8.
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Dobashi et al. (US20230012173A1 -hereinafter Dobashi).
Regarding Claim 1, Dobashi teaches a recipe proposal device, comprising:
an input section for inputting a target information regarding a target shape of a substrate to be processed in a substrate processing apparatus; (see [0042]; Dobashi: “The input device 1321 receives input data from the user or length measurement value data 1342 from the input/output device 1341, and inputs the received data to the process recipe search apparatus 1310.” See [0040]: “The user inputs, from the input device 1321, information, such as target shape data 1325 and recipe search range data 1326, thereby interactively executing search for the etching recipe from the information of a candidate etching recipe presented by a GUI displayed on the display device 1322.”)
a recipe proposal section that proposes a process recipe used in the substrate processing apparatus in order to form the target shape, based on the target information; (see [0041]: Dobashi: “The process recipe search apparatus 1310 receives the target shape data 1325 from the input device 1321, and searches for the etching recipe with which the plasma processing apparatus 100 can optimally acquire a target shape.”)
a calculation section that calculates a prediction information regarding a predicted shape when the substrate is processed in the substrate processing apparatus using the process recipe; and (see [0052]; Dobashi: “the predicted process shapes by the etching recipes proposed from the machine learning model by the automatic recipe search also become the shape approximate to the target shape.”)
a display section that displays the target information and the prediction information. (see [0052]; Dobashi: “The process recipe search apparatus 1310 includes the display shape highlight processing unit 1318, and can highlight the shape difference between the predicted process shape and the target shape to display it on the display device 1322.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Dobashi further teaches wherein the display section displays the target information and the prediction information on a same screen. (see [0066]; Dobashi: “FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on the display device 1322 by the process recipe decision unit 1316 in order for the engineer to choose the process recipes from among the candidate etching recipes determined from the machine learning model in the process recipe decision 203.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Dobashi further teaches wherein the calculation section calculates the prediction information, based on a processing model representing a relationship between a recipe parameter included in the process recipe and a processing shape in the substrate processing apparatus. (see [0052]; Dobashi: “As the actual measurement results are approximate to the target shape, the predicted process shapes by the etching recipes proposed from the machine learning model by the automatic recipe search also become the shape approximate to the target shape.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Dobashi further teaches further comprising a decision section that receives an input regarding whether or not to adopt the process recipe proposed by the recipe proposal section. (see [0050]; Dobashi: “When the machine learning model is typically created, measurement results by a plurality of process recipes are required. Thus, the central processing unit 1311 performs number-of-data determination 209 for the measurement results, and when the number of data is not sufficient, the process recipe decision 203 to the process dimension determination 206 are performed through manual recipe examination 208 as described above.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Dobashi further teaches further comprising a modification section for modifying the process recipe proposed by the recipe proposal section (see Fig. 10 and [0076]; Dobashi: “When there is a difference between the target shape and the measurement result in the process dimension determination 206, target shape determination 1002 is performed.” See [0075]: “FIG. 10 is a flowchart by which the process recipe search apparatus 1310 develops the etching recipe of the plasma processing apparatus 100 by using the machine learning model. The point that a recipe search flow 1001 indicated by a dotted line and changing the target shape is added in search for the process recipe using the machine learning model is the difference from the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 3.”), wherein the calculation section calculates a correction prediction information regarding a predicted shape when the substrate is processed in the substrate processing apparatus (see [0076]; Dobashi: “if a problem is found in the target shape in the target shape determination 1002, the target shape decision unit 1313 performs target shape correction 1003”), using a corrected process recipe which is the process recipe after the modification (see [0050]: “the recipe search unit 1315 performs automatic recipe search 210 by using the created machine learning model… After the decision 203 of the plurality of process recipes, the etching 204 to the process dimension determination 206 are performed.”), and the display section displays the target information and the correction prediction information. (see [0078]; Dobashi: “FIG. 11 illustrates an example in which the process shapes corresponding to the redefined target shape are displayed in the shape display region 1103.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Dobashi further teaches wherein the display section displays the target information and the correction prediction information on a same screen. (see [0078]; Dobashi: “FIG. 11 illustrates an example in which the process shapes corresponding to the redefined target shape are displayed in the shape display region 1103.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Dobashi further teaches further comprising a decision section that receives an input regarding whether or not to adopt the corrected process recipe. (see [0078]; Dobashi: “The search range 1216 is visualized on the basis of the recipe search range table 1212, so that the user can confirm that the inputted constraint relational expression is correctly reflected. The recipe search range data 1326 is decided by pressing a search range decision button 1217.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi as discussed connection with claim 8.
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) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi in view of Kagoshima et al. (US20070193687A1 -hereinafter Kagoshima).
Regarding Claim 4, Dobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the recipe proposal section refers to a database associating a plurality of the process recipes with respective processing shapes when the process recipes are used, and from the database, extracts and proposes the process recipe which corresponds to the processing shape close to the target information.
Kagoshima from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the recipe proposal section refers to a database associating a plurality of the process recipes with respective processing shapes when the process recipes are used, and from the database, extracts and proposes the process recipe which corresponds to the processing shape close to the target information. (see [0032]; Kagoshima: “Reference numeral 28 denotes a usable recipe selecting means which acts to select one of recipes stored in a recipe server 29 which is the closest to the optimum recipe generated by the optimum recipe calculation model and set it as a usable recipe.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Dobashi to include Kagoshima’s features of wherein the recipe proposal section refers to a database associating a plurality of the process recipes with respective processing shapes when the process recipes are used, and from the database, extracts and proposes the process recipe which corresponds to the processing shape close to the target information. Doing so would reduce the number of inspection steps in manufacturing a semiconductor. (Kagoshima, [0041])
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by Dobashi and Kagoshima as discussed connection with claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (US20220259729A1) discloses update the recipe based on the predicted value so as to change a value of the control target to approach the target value before the deposition step.
Ishikawa (US20210035277A1) discloses corrects the recipe such that the predicted image becomes close to a target image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117