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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts. The limitations of predicting and forming an angle trajectory map, performing first and second groupings, calculating a direction difference, and combining that difference with an angle difference to determine a site/machine are evaluations and calculations that can be performed in the human mind or mathematically (calculating differences, forming distribution maps). The additional elements (claim 9: generic “machine angle data collection module”, “angle trajectory map prediction module”, etc.) area recited at a high level of generality and do not change the abstract nature of the underlying analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of collecting machine angle data and obtaining defects are insignificant extra solution activity, and the method is merely applied in the technological environment of semiconductor manufacturing. No improvement to the functioning of a computer, no particular machine that is integral to the claim beyond generic modules (claim 9), and no transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing beyond the abstract identification of a defect source are recited. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional data collection activities plus instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic computing modules (claim 9).
Notably, regarding claim 9, the system modules are recited at a high level of generality as functional black boxes that perform the identical abstract mental processes and mathematical calculations as claim 1. The modules do not impose a meaningful limitation or supply an inventive concept; they are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2–8 and 10–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9, shown above. Specifically, claims 2 and 10 only add conventional data type definitions (loadport, lockload, airlock, process chamber). Claims 3 and 11 add further conventional identifiers (recipe, product, process ID). Claims 4 and 12 add an additional mental process/mathematical evaluation limitation, “rule judgement given according to data type”. Claims 5 and 13 add conventional automatic/manual collection step. Claims 6 and 14 add the conventional step of obtaining defects using test equipment. Claims 7 and 15 merely describe mathematical or mental characterizations of data (“dynamically changing up-down inheritance”, “fixed change”, etc.). These limitations are insignificant extra solution activity, mental process, or mathematical evaluation steps and do not integrate the abstract idea.
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: “machine angle data collection module”, “angle trajectory map prediction module”, “first defect grouping module”, “second defect grouping module”, and “comprehensive analysis module” in claim 9.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 6 and 14 broadly claim “test equipment” from which defects are obtained on the defective wafers. However, the specification lacks sufficient detail or working examples enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the “test equipment” without engaging in undue experimentation. The specification merely repeats the claim language, when referring to “test equipment” as in claims 6 and 14. Claims 8 and 15 broadly claim an angle trajectory map encompassing five distinct change categories. The specification lacks sufficient detail or working examples enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement algorithms for all five types of angle shifts across arbitrary multi-chamber fab lines (CMP, ETCH, IMP, etc.) without engaging in undue experimentation. The specification only provides high-level functional descriptions of table filling (see para. [0056–0065]) rather than code, logic paths, or concrete mathematical models for predicting these complex trajectory states.
Claims 9–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In their face, the system claims appear to rely heavily on broad software functional modules (“machine angle data collection module”, “angle trajectory map prediction module”, “first defect grouping module”, “second defect grouping module”, and “comprehensive analysis module”). While the specification outlines data table structures (Table 1), it fails to disclose the underlying data processing algorithms or software architecture that allows the prediction module to automatically track and propagate wafer angles through complex multi-step tool sequences. Consequently, the claims are broader than what is enabled by the supporting disclosure.
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.
Claim limitations “machine angle data collection module”, “angle trajectory map prediction module”, “first defect grouping module”, “second defect grouping module”, and “comprehensive analysis module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification outlines data tables (Table 1 showing “Category”, “Department”, “Equipment ID”, etc.) and high-level workflow steps, it fails to disclose the specific algorithms, software architecture, mathematical formulas, or computational routines that the “angle trajectory map prediction module” and “comprehensive analysis module” use to compute trajectory maps and cross-reference direction differences with machine angles. Therefore, the claims (9–15) are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, and 15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the claimed, “determine (claim 1: determining) the site and the machine where the defect on each defective wafer in the selected group occurs in combination with the direction difference and an angle difference in the angle trajectory map” is unclear. The claims recite the result to be achieved (determining the defective machine via direction and angle differences) without reciting the structural correlation or mathematical transformation steps required to bridge a spatial defect direction on a wafer to a specific internal machine coordinate or chamber orientation.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the claimed, “wherein the machine angle data further comprises a rule judgment given according to the data type, and the rule judgment given to a same data type is the same” is unclear. The specification describes “angle description” and “rules” loosely (see para. [0056–0065]), but fails to define what a “rule judgement” actually encompasses or how it is mathematically or logically structured. The term is purely functional and subjective, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the metes and bounds of what constitutes a valid “rule judgement” versus arbitrary configuration data.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claimed, “dynamically changing up-down inheritance” is unclear. This phrase is recognized in the category of wafer angle change within an angle trajectory map, but lacks established technical meaning in semiconductor manufacturing physics or data analytics. While the specification lists the phrase, there is no working definition, algorithmic formula, or operational explanation of what “up-down inheritance” means or how it is calculated dynamically.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claimed, “detective” (last line of claim 1 and second to last line of claim 9) should be amended to –defective–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1–15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN109241114A), hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “A method (claim 9: system (see Zhou Fig. 7, ref. #’s 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; claims 8 and 9; para. [0058–0062])) for analyzing a wafer angle in semiconductor integrated circuit manufacturing (Abstract; para. [0002, 0003, 0056]; see also claim 1), comprising the following steps: step 1: collecting machine angle data of each machine on a production line of semiconductor integrated circuits, a machine angle being a wafer angle at which a wafer is processed on the machine (Fig. 5, 6; [0014, 0015, 0021–0026, 0059–0061]; Zhou obtains, for each wafer, the angle value at which the wafer exits each processing equipment it experiences (defined as the “second angle value”). This is done by placing an angle detection device (360° aperture) at the wafer exit of each tool and measuring the change in notch (V-groove) orientation relative to the entry orientation. This is “machine angle data” of each machine on the production line); step 2: predicting and forming an angle trajectory map of each analyzed wafer in an analyzed lot in a process according to the machine angle data, the angle trajectory map being a wafer angle distribution map of the analyzed wafer on the machine corresponding to each site in the process (Fig. 6; [0014, 0055, 0061]; Zhou records, for every wafer, the second angle value associated with every process tool the wafer has passed through, thereby constructing a per wafer history of orientation changes across the process sequence. Under BRI, this collection of tool specific orientation values constitutes an “angle trajectory map”/“wafer angle distribution map” corresponding to each site in the process); step 3: making defective wafers be the analyzed wafers with defects, and performing first grouping on the defective wafers in the analyzed lot according to defect types, the defective wafers with a same defect type being classified into a same first group in the first grouping ([0011, 0012, 0020–0022, 0054]; Fig. 4–6; Zhou first detects wafers that possess directional feature defects. Although Zhou focuses on directional (angle) defects, the initial selection of defective wafers and the subsequent grouping of those wafers by a shared characteristic of the defect (identical first angle values) meets the BRI of grouping defective wafers by defect type (directional defects of the same angular character are treated as the same type for grouping purposes)); step 4: selecting one first group in the first grouping as a selected group, and performing second grouping on each defective wafer in the selected group according to defect directions, the defective wafers with a same defect direction in the selected group being classified into a same second group in the second grouping ([0011–0014, 0020–0023, 0054, 0055]; Fig. 4–6, claim 1; Zhou performs a first grouping of the defective wafers according to their identical defect angle values (“first angle values”), producing first group codes, then performs a second grouping according to the machine exit angle values (“second angle values”), producing second group codes. The defect angle grouping is a grouping by defect direction; the subsequent machine angle grouping is the second grouping recited in the claim); and step 5: calculating a direction difference between the defect directions of the second groups, and determining the site and the machine where the defect on each defective wafer in the selected group occurs in combination with the direction difference and an angle difference in the angle trajectory map of each detective wafer in the selected group ([0009, 0024, 0055, 0056]; claim 1; Zhou compares the first group codes (based on defect angles/directions) with the second group codes (based on machine angles). When a first group code matches a second group code, the processing equipment corresponding to that second group code is identified as the faulty equipment. The comparison of the angular grouping necessarily evaluates the relationship (difference or identity) between the defect directions and the recorded machine angles in the per wafer trajectory, thereby determining the site/machine at which the defect occurred.).”
Regarding claims 2 and 10, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein, in step 1, the machine angle data further comprises a data type of the machine angle, the data type is defined by a part associated with the machine angle, and the part associated with the machine angle comprises wafer loadport, wafer loadlock chamber, airlock chamber, or process chamber ([0014, 0061]; Zhou obtains second angle values from each processing equipment the wafer experiences; the equipment includes the various chambers and stations of a semiconductor process line. Under BRI, these stations encompass loadports, loadlocks, airlocks, and process chambers.).”
Regarding claims 3 and 11, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein, in the data type, the part associated with the machine angle further comprises recipe, product, or process ID (Abstract; [0054–0056, 0064]; The process tool identification and wafer history inherently or necessarily include recipe/process ID’s associated with each tool passage (standard in semiconductor manufacturing systems; Zhou’s per tool angle recording occurs in the context of the overall process flow)).”
Regarding claims 4 and 12, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein the machine angle data further comprises a rule judgment given according to the data type, and the rule judgment given to a same data type is the same ([0016–0019, 0030–0032, 0052–0055]; claim 1; Zhou applies a uniform grouping rule, (identical angle values to same group) to each set of angle data of the same type).”
Regarding claims 5 and 13, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein, in step 1, the machine angle data is automatically collected or manually input ([0022, 0054]; Fig. 4–7; Zhou teaches both manual first grouping and automatic second grouping, and the angle detection devices automatically measure the second angle values).”
Regarding claims 6 and 14, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein the defects on the defective wafers are obtained through test equipment ([0012, 0059]; Fig. 7, ref. #’s 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; claim 1; Zhou obtains the directional defects from a defect detection system).”
Regarding claim 7, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein, in step 3, in a case that a number of the first group is more than two, step 4 and step 5 are repeated to sequentially determine the site and the machine where the defect corresponding to each first group occurs (Fig. 4, 6, [0054–0056]; Zhou’s comparison is performed across all first group codes and second group codes; when multiple groups exist, the matching process is repeated for each).”
Regarding claims 8 and 15, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Zhou teaches, “wherein, in step 2, the angle trajectory map comprises the following changes of the wafer angle: dynamically changing up-down inheritance; fixed change; regular angle increase or decrease; mirrored change; and diagonal change (Zhou records the successive orientation changes of each wafer as it passes through successive tools. Under BRI, these recorded changes encompass the various possible angular transformations that occur in semiconductor equipment (fixed offsets, incremental rotations, etc.); see Fig. 6; [0053–0057, 0061–0064]).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach devices and systems for measuring or detecting defects in semiconductor wafers, configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights