DETAILED ACTION
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 18-23 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 18 recites the limitation "the reference range" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes, a method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “selecting representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths from among the plurality of wavelengths, and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths,” are abstract idea, as they are directed to mental process. Furthermore, the limitations such as “extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1, selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T, with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths and calculating fitting scores; and selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths,” are also abstract ideas, as they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “measuring an overlay at multiple positions on a wafer,” “measuring an overlay by using the plurality of wavelengths based on the overlay measurement recipe, measuring an overlay at multiple positions on a wafer at each of the plurality of wavelengths within a set wavelength range,” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality. The claims additionally recite “performing a subsequent semiconductor process,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, also recited at high level of generality. The claims do not improve the functioning of machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are directed to improve abstract idea of selecting wavelength, including by using weights. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, and not eligible under the 101. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “measuring an overlay at multiple positions on a wafer,” “measuring an overlay by using the plurality of wavelengths based on the overlay measurement recipe, measuring an overlay at multiple positions on a wafer at each of the plurality of wavelengths within a set wavelength range,” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “performing a subsequent semiconductor process,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, also recited at high level of generality, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 (hereinafter Gellineau)
Regarding Claim 1. Gellineau discloses multi-wavelength selection method for overlay measurement (Abstract), comprising:
measuring an overlay (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more targets, where targets are overlay) at multiple positions on a wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets; Paragraph [0042], measurement of the composition of one or more layers) at each of a plurality of wavelengths within a set first wavelength range (Paragraph [0053], wavelengths);
selecting representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths from among the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths; subset of wavelengths chosen; Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Regarding Claim 2. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on principal component analysis (PCA) (Paragraph [0086], PCA).
Regarding Claim 3. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on singular value decomposition (SVD) (Paragraph [0064], using singular value decomposition).
Regarding Claim 10. Galleneau discloses, before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering).
Regarding Claim 11. Galleneau discloses the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay).
Regarding Claim 12. Gallineau discloses an overlay measurement (Paragraph [0048]), comprising:
selecting a plurality of wavelengths for overlay measurement, setting up an overlay measurement recipe based on the plurality of wavelengths and measuring an overlay by using the plurality of wavelengths based on the overlay measurement recipe (Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], measurement configuration or recipe, including selection of wavelengths, polarization, azimuth and/or incidence parameters; subset of wavelengths chosen; Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 3B, 354, measurement based on determined integration times is also part of the recipe), wherein the selecting of the plurality of wavelengths comprises:
measuring an overlay (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more target, where targets are overlay) at multiple positions on a wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets; Paragraph [0040], certain regions, etc.) at each of a plurality of wavelengths within a set first wavelength range (Paragraph [0053], wavelengths);
selecting representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths from among the plurality of wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Regarding Claims 13. Gellineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on principal component analysis (PCA) (Paragraph [0086], PCA) or singular value decomposition (SVD) (Paragraph [0064], using singular value decomposition).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554.
Regarding Claim 4. Gallineau discloses obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0040], overlay targets; [0053], wavelengths; Fig. 3A), and wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0063], Jacobian matrix to generate an initial subset of signals to optimize performance metric; Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], singular value decomposition and eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths, and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signals fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 14. Gallineau discloses obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0040], overlay targets; [0053], wavelengths; Fig. 3A), and wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signals fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 16. Gellineau discloses before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths, and
wherein the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay)
Regarding Claim 17. Gellineau discloses setting up the overlay measurement recipe based on the representative wavelengths and the weights of the representative wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths; subset of wavelengths chosen, Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Kang et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0179302 (hereinafter Kang)
Regarding Claim 5. Gellineau discloses the representative eigenvectors are selected in an order of highest weight (Paragraph [0068]) and fitting with respect to the representative eigenvectors (Paragraphs [0061], [0086])
Gellineau does not disclose the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores.
Kang discloses the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores (Paragraphs [0066]-[0069])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kang in Gellineau and have the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores, so as to accurately perform semiconductor corrections and processing.
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Hulsebos et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0284621 (hereinafter Hulsebos)
Regarding Claim 7. Gellineau discloses fitting and selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest fitting score (Paragraphs [0061]-[0063]; [0086]; Fig. 2).
Gellineau does not disclose calculating a radial basis function (RBF) fitting score for each combination of a combination rCn for selecting n from T, and wherein selecting the wavelength combination, comprises: selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest RBF fitting score.
Hulsebos discloses radial basis function fitting score that is used to reduce overlay deviation (Abstract; Paragraph [0083]; [0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Hulsebos in Gellineau and calculate a radial basis function (RBF) fitting score for each combination of a combination rCn for selecting n from T, and wherein selecting the wavelength combination, comprises: selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest RBF fitting score, so as to improve the overlay performance in semiconductor process.
Claims 18-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Lee et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0294455 (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding Claim 18. Gallineau discloses selecting a plurality of wavelengths for overlay measurement (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more targets, where targets are overlay; Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths, subset of wavelengths);
setting up an overlay measurement recipe based on the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], measurement configuration or recipe, including selection of wavelengths, polarization, azimuth and/or incidence parameters, Fig. 3B, 354, measurement based on determined integration times is also part of the recipe;
measuring an overlay by using the plurality of wavelengths based on the overlay measurement recipe (Fig. 3A, 302);
correcting the overlay (Paragraph [0096]) and forming a pattern based on the measured overlay (Paragraph [0097], overlay map; Paragraph [0073]);
Gellineau does not disclose determining whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the reference range, performing a subsequent semiconductor process.
Lee discloses disclose determining whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the reference range, performing a subsequent semiconductor process (Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], unreliable pattern if greater than a reference degree of damage; Figs. 1, 6 and 8; Paragraphs [0019], selecting a reliable overlay mark based on evaluated degrees of damage; [0053] patterns used to test accuracy, [0059], [0078], [0101], [0107], improve yield of the semiconductor process)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lee in Gellneau and determine whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the reference range, perform a subsequent semiconductor process, and therefore improve the yield of the semiconductor process.
Regarding Claim 19. Gellineau discloses the selecting of the multi- wavelengths comprises: measuring an overlay (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more target, where targets are overlay) at multiple positions on a wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets) at each of a plurality of wavelengths within a set first wavelength range (Paragraph [0053], wavelengths);
selecting representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths from among the plurality of wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Regarding Claim 20. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on singular value decomposition (SVD) (Paragraph [0064], single value decomposition), and wherein the measuring of the overlay, comprises: obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more targets, where targets are overlay; Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths, subset of wavelengths); and
wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signal fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 22. Gellineau discloses before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths, and
wherein the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay)
Regarding Claim 23. Gellineau discloses setting up of the overlay measurement recipe, comprises: setting up the overlay measurement recipe based on the representative wavelengths and the weights of the representative wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths; subset of wavelengths chosen, Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process),
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 ,15 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections, including the 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 9. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including, allocating the weights to the representative wavelengths, comprises:
allocating weights by selecting a weight combination having a smallest mis-reading correction (MRC) distribution among weight combinations in which a sum of the weights equals 1, and wherein the MRC is a difference between an overlay of an overlay mark and an on-cell overlay.
Regarding Claim 15. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including, allocating the weights to the representative wavelengths, comprises:
allocating weights by selecting a weight combination having a smallest mis-reading correction (MRC) distribution among weight combinations in which a sum of the weights equals 1.
Regarding Claim 21. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including, allocating the weights to the representative wavelengths, comprises:
allocating weights by selecting a weight combination having a smallest mis-reading
correction (MRC) distribution among weight combinations in which a sum of the weights equals 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staals et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0023867
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857