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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 12/31/2023.
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 9 and 11-18 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 9 and 18, each of these claims recites “the second shape map”. There is inadequate antecedent basis for this claim term, as they depend directly on independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, which do not provide such antecedent basis. Dependent claims 2 and 12 do provide antecedent basis, so claims 9 and 18 are interpreted as depending on claims 2 and 12, respectively.
Claim 11 introduces “a workpiece” on line 4 of the second page of claims, and again on line 9. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same workpiece both times. This ambiguity also applies to subsequent recitations of “the workpiece”. The claim is interpreted as referring to the same workpiece both times.
Claims 12-18 are indefinite due to depending, directly or indirectly, on claim 11.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Interpretation of the claim:
Claim 1 generally recites using a processor to extract a shape map of a workpiece, subtract a calibration map from it, and determine an in-plane distortion. Of note is that extracting a shape map does not require producing the shape map or measuring any shapes as part of the method itself.
Step 1:
The limitations are a series of steps, so form a process, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim encompasses embodiments as an abstract idea, recited in the steps of extracting a shape map (paragraph 27 of the present disclosure states that extraction may be performed via calculating the median surface of the front and back planes of the workpiece), subtracting a calibration map (described in paragraph 32. Note that subtraction is a mathematical calculation.), and determining in-plane distortion mapping (described in paragraph 35 in terms of a calculation). Mathematical calculations are a type of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
All elements of the method are directed to the abstract idea, so there are no additional elements available to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements that could amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-10:
Claim 2 generally recites that the method of claim 1 further comprises acquiring images in an unspecified way (neither the claim nor the specification gives much detail in how the images are acquired. Is a camera of some sort used? Are the images downloaded from a database somewhere?) at a plurality of angles, as well as determining a first shape map (described in paragraph 31 as using averaging, a mathematical calculation) and a second shape map (which may also be done by averaging (paragraph 31)) and subtracting (still a mathematical calculation). Acquiring images by unspecified means is merely routine data gathering necessary to practice the abstract idea, so does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 merely specifies a larger number of angles required for claim 2, which does not add meaningfully to eligibility.
Claims 4-8 add details to the subject of the abstract idea, but do not add additional elements outside of that abstract idea.
Claim 9 gives further limit to the mathematical calculations in the claim on which it depends and is not an additional element outside of the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is for a non-transitory computer readable medium. While such a device is within at least one of the four statutory categories, a generic computer, claimed at a high level of generality, is not generally sufficient to integrate the abstract idea it performs into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 11:
Interpretation of the claim:
Claim 11 generally recites an interferometer tool configured to obtain measurements communicating with a processor configured to extract a shape map, subtract a calibration map, and determine in-plane distortion matching.
Step 1:
The interferometer and processor are devices that fall into at least one statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea, namely the mathematical calculations performed by the processor of extracting a shape map (paragraph 27 of the present disclosure states that extraction may be performed via calculating the median surface of the front and back planes of the workpiece), subtracting a calibration map (described in paragraph 32. Note that subtraction is a mathematical calculation.), and determining in-plane distortion mapping (described in paragraph 35 in terms of a calculation). Mathematical calculations are a type of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
While the interferometer tool and processor are additional elements, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the interferometer performs routine data gathering necessary for the abstract mathematical calculations, and the processor is merely a generic computer claimed at a high level of generality.
Step 2B:
Both the generic interferometer tool and the generic processor are additionally well-understood, routine, and conventional, so do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 12-18:
Claim 12 generally recites that the processor of claim 11 is further configured for acquiring images in an unspecified way (neither the claim nor the specification gives much detail in how the images are acquired. Is a camera of some sort used? Are the images downloaded from a database somewhere? The images acquired seem to be separate from the interferometric measurements from claim 11, or at least are allowed to be separate.) at a plurality of angles, as well as determining a first shape map (described in paragraph 31 as using averaging, a mathematical calculation) and a second shape map (which may also be done by averaging (paragraph 31)) and subtracting (still a mathematical calculation). Acquiring images by unspecified means is merely routine data gathering necessary to practice the abstract idea, so does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 merely specifies a larger number of angles required for claim 12, which does not add meaningfully to eligibility.
Claims 14-17 add details to the subject of the abstract idea, but do not add additional elements outside of that abstract idea.
Claim 18 gives further limit to the mathematical calculations in the claim on which it depends and is not an additional element outside of the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vukkadala (US Patent 9779202).
Regarding claim 1, Vukkadala teaches a method comprising: extracting, using a processor, a shape map of a workpiece (FIG. 2, step 204, wafer geometry WG2);
subtracting (FIG. 2, step 206), using the processor, a calibration map of the workpiece (FIG. 2, step 202, wafer geometry WG1) from the shape map to generate a calibrated shape map (FIG. 2, shape-change map); and
determining, using the processor, in-plane distortion matching using the calibrated shape map (FIG. 2, in-plane distortion map).
Regarding claim 4, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (COL. 6, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 6, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the in-plane distortion matching is between two metrology tools (COL. 3, lines 53-55 recite the use of “the WaferSight Patterned Wafer Geometry (PWG) system from KLA-Tencor”, which is a type of metrology tool).
Regarding claim 7, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 6 (as described above), wherein the metrology tools are each an interferometer tool (COL. 3, lines 53-55, the metrology tool in question, described by Vukkadala as “the WaferSight Patterned Wafer Geometry (PWG) system from KLA-Tencor” is an interferometer tool. See Brunner (Non-Patent Literature “Characterization and mitigation of overlay error on silicon wafers with nonuniform stress”), section 2, which points out that the device uses Fizeau interferometers.).
Regarding claim 10, Vukkadala teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to instruct a processor to execute (COL. 6, lines 59-61) the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding claim 11, Vukkadala teaches a system comprising: an interferometer tool configured to obtain one or more measurements of a workpiece (COL. 3, lines 53-55, the metrology tool in question, described by Vukkadala as “the WaferSight Patterned Wafer Geometry (PWG) system from KLA-Tencor” is an interferometer tool. See Brunner (Non-Patent Literature “Characterization and mitigation of overlay error on silicon wafers with nonuniform stress”), section 2, which points out that the device uses Fizeau interferometers.), wherein
the one or more measurements include one or more in-plane distortion measurements of the workpiece (COL. 3, final line and COL. 4, first line); and
a processor in electronic communication with the interferometer tool (abstract), wherein the processor is configured to: extract a shape map of a workpiece (FIG. 2, step 204, wafer geometry WG2);
subtract (FIG. 2, step 204, wafer geometry WG2) a calibration map of the workpiece (FIG. 2, step 202, wafer geometry WG1) from the shape map to generate a calibrated shape map (FIG. 2, shape-change map); and
determine in-plane distortion matching using the calibrated shape map (FIG. 2, in-plane distortion map).
Regarding claim 14, Vukkadala teaches the system of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (COL. 6, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 16, Vukkadala teaches the system of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the in-plane distortion matching is between the interferometer tool and another interferometer tool (the interferometry setup named in COL. 3, lines 53-55 acts as two interferometers. See FIG. 1 of Brunner).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8-9, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukkadala (US Patent 9779202) in view of Drohan (US Patent Publication 20020017911).
Regarding claim 2, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 1 (as described above),
While Vukkadala does teach imaging the wafer as part of the measurements (COL. 3, lines 24-26. Note that “pixel” is a term associated with imaging.), Vukkadala does not explicitly teach acquiring images of the workpiece at a plurality of angles around the workpiece, wherein the plurality of angles includes at least three angles;
determining, using the processor, a first averaged shape map from the plurality of angles;
determining, using the processor, a second shape map from a 0° acquisition angle; and
subtracting, using the processor, the second shape map from the first averaged shape map to generate the calibration map.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach acquiring images of the workpiece at a plurality of angles around the workpiece (FIG. 5), wherein the plurality of angles includes at least three angles (FIG. 5 shows at least three angles);
determining, using the processor, a first averaged shape map from the plurality of angles (FIG. 8, G, which is an average made by averaging GN across the different images);
determining, using the processor, a second shape map from a 0° acquisition angle (FIG. 8, GN, taken from the measurement designated as the zero-degree measurement); and
subtracting, using the processor, the second shape map from the first averaged shape map to generate the calibration map (FIG. 8, the difference between G and each GN is used in calculating residuals to calculate the asymmetric component A of the shape corrector C). By calculating an asymmetric component, Drohan is able to better correct for errors introduced by the mechanism used to hold the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala with the asymmetric error correction method of Drohan in order to the improve the calibration of the metrology instruments and improve the quality of measurements taken therewith.
Regarding claim 3, Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 2 (as described above).
Drohan further teaches that the plurality of angles includes twelve angles (FIG. 11 shows data for 12 different angles). By choosing twelve angles, Drohan increases the angular resolution of the angle-sensitive measurements better than would be possible with a smaller number of measurements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, in the manner of Drohan, by using twelve angles, thereby better resolving any warp and bow better than if fewer angles were chosen.
Regarding claim 5, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Vukkadala does not explicitly teach associating the calibrated shape map with a pallet that is configured to hold the workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach associating the calibrated shape map with a pallet that is configured to hold the workpiece (FIG. 3 a and b, grippers 12, 14, and 16). By taking into account the mechanism that holds the wafer, Drohan is able to calibrate the measurement of the wafers to account for the warp and bow introduced by holding the wafer (paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala with the teachings of Drohan by taking into account wafer distortion due to the device holding the wafer, motivated by the desire to properly calibrate the measurements and achieve better accuracy in the measurements.
Regarding claim 8, Vukkadala teaches the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Vukkadala does not explicitly teach that the in-plane distortion matching is between two pallets, wherein the pallets are each configured to hold the workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach that the pallets are each configured to hold the workpiece (FIG. 3 a and b, grippers 12, 14, and 16). By measuring the effects of the grippers on the measurements, Drohan is able to subtract errors introduced by temporary distortion caused by the grippers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala with the teachings of Drohan by measuring the wafer distortion due to the device holding the wafer, motivated by the desire to properly calibrate the measurements and achieve better accuracy in the measurements.
Regarding claim 9, Vukkadala teaches the, as modified by Drohan, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 2 (as described above).
Drohan further teaches that the second shape map is averaged from a plurality of 0° acquisition angle shape maps (paragraph 37, penultimate sentence). By averaging across multiple measurements, Drohan can provide a more accurate calculation of the calibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, in the manner of Drohan, by averaging across multiple measurements, thereby increasing the accuracy of the results.
Regarding claim 12, Vukkadala teaches the system of claim 11 (as described above).
Vukkadala does teach imaging the wafer as part of the measurements (COL. 3, lines 24-26. Note that “pixel” is a term associated with imaging.), Vukkadala does not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to: receive images of the workpiece at a plurality of angles around the workpiece, wherein the
plurality of angles includes at least three angles;
determine a first averaged shape map from the plurality of angles;
determine a second shape map from a 0° acquisition angle; and
subtract the second shape map from the first averaged shape map to generate the calibration map.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach that the processor is further configured to: receive images of the workpiece at a plurality of angles around the workpiece (FIG. 5), wherein the
plurality of angles includes at least three angles (FIG. 5 shows at least three angles);
determine a first averaged shape map from the plurality of angles (FIG. 8, G, which is an average made by averaging GN across the different images);
determine a second shape map from a 0° acquisition angle (FIG. 8, GN, taken from the measurement designated as the zero-degree measurement); and
subtract the second shape map from the first averaged shape map to generate the calibration map (FIG. 8, the difference between G and each GN is used in calculating residuals to calculate the asymmetric component A of the shape corrector C). By calculating an asymmetric component, Drohan is able to better correct for errors introduced by the mechanism used to hold the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology system of Vukkadala with the asymmetric error correction method of Drohan in order to the improve the calibration of the metrology instruments and improve the quality of measurements taken therewith.
Regarding claim 13, Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 12 (as described above).
Drohan further teaches that the plurality of angles includes twelve angles (FIG. 11 shows data for 12 different angles). By choosing twelve angles, Drohan increases the angular resolution of the angle-sensitive measurements better than would be possible with a smaller number of measurements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology system of Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, in the manner of Drohan, by using twelve angles, thereby better resolving any warp and bow better than if fewer angles were chosen.
Regarding claim 15, Vukkadala teaches the system of claim 11 (as described above).
Vukkadala does not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to associate the calibrated shape map with a pallet that is configured to hold the workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach that the processor is further configured to associate the calibrated shape map with a pallet that is configured to hold the workpiece (FIG. 3 a and b, grippers 12, 14, and 16). By taking into account the mechanism that holds the wafer, Drohan is able to calibrate the measurement of the wafers to account for the warp and bow introduced by holding the wafer (paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology system of Vukkadala with the teachings of Drohan by taking into account wafer distortion due to the device holding the wafer, motivated by the desire to properly calibrate the measurements and achieve better accuracy in the measurements.
Regarding claim 17, Vukkadala teaches the system of claim 11 (as described above).
Vukkadala does not explicitly teach that the in-plane distortion matching is between two pallets configured to hold the workpiece, wherein one of the pallets is part of the interferometer tool.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor wafer metrology, Drohan does teach that the in-plane distortion matching is between two pallets configured to hold the workpiece, wherein one of the pallets is part of the interferometer tool (FIG. 3 a and b, grippers 12, 14, and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala with the teachings of Drohan by measuring the wafer distortion due to the device holding the wafer, motivated by the desire to properly calibrate the measurements and achieve better accuracy in the measurements.
Regarding claim 18, Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 12 (as described above).
Drohan further teaches that the second shape map is averaged from a plurality of 0° acquisition angle shape maps (paragraph 37, penultimate sentence). By averaging across multiple measurements, Drohan can provide a more accurate calculation of the calibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metrology method of Vukkadala, as modified by Drohan, in the manner of Drohan, by averaging across multiple measurements, thereby increasing the accuracy of the results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights