DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18402328 application filed January 2, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on December 1, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Applicant’s election, with traverse, of the invention of Species 1b, Species 2a, Species 3b, Species 4b and Species 5b, Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-19 in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner fails to show serious burden to search all claims. This is not found persuasive because
(a) the fields of search are different for method claims compared to apparatus claims,
(b) the apparatus and the method are examined differently in that the method can be performed by a different apparatus, and the apparatus can perform a different method,
(c) burden is shown by the different classification for the method and the apparatus,
(d) the method and apparatus are different inventions,
(e) restriction is necessary when more than one invention are present, and
(f) applicant fails to show any evidence that the classifications cited by examiner is erroneous.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “A method of endpoint detection, the method comprising:
receiving a wafer classification model that includes wafer types, product types and end-point detection (EPD) algorithms, wherein each EPD algorithm corresponds to a respective wafer type and a respective product type;
receiving initial data of a wafer measured by an optical instrument;
executing the wafer classification model based on the initial data to determine a wafer type, a product type and an EPD algorithm for the wafer or to determine whether the wafer or the optical instrument is faulty;
executing an etching process on the wafer to obtain a product;
during the etching process, running the EPD algorithm to obtain an etching depth using data associated with the etching process measured by sensors so that an endpoint time of the etching process is determined by the etching depth or a maximum endpoint time; and
executing a post-etching outlier model to determine whether the product is faulty.”(emphasis added). Regarding the limitation “to determine a wafer type, a product type and an EPD algorithm for the wafer or to determine whether the wafer or the optical instrument is faulty”, since claim 1 does not recite any actual determination the wafer type, the product type, the EPD algorithm or the optical instrument is faulty or not faulty, for the purpose of examining the phrase after the words “to” will be interpreted as an intention, and may or may not occur. Regarding the limitation “executing an etching process on the wafer to obtain a product”, since claim 1 does not recite any actual obtaining the product, for the purpose of examining the phrase after the word “to” will be interpreted as an intention, and may or may not occur. Regarding the limitation “running the EPD algorithm to obtain an etching depth”, since claim 1 does not recite any actual obtaining an etching depth, for the purpose of examining the phrase after the phrase “to” will be interpreted as an intention, and may or may not occur. Regarding the limitation “executing a post-etching outlier model to determine whether the product is faulty”, for the purpose of examining the phrase after the phrase “to” will be interpreted as an intention, and may or may not occur. Regarding the limitation “executing a post-etching outlier model”, for the purpose of examining the post-etching outlier model is interpreted as any model.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. --Claim 1 recites “to determine whether the wafer or the optical instrument is faulty”, but the term “faulty” is not clear. The term "faulty" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the specification discloses “In some embodiments, when the wafer type, the product type and the EPD algorithm for the wafer are unavailable in the wafer classification model, the wafer or the optical instrument is determined to be faulty” ([0007]), or “In some embodiments, when the optical instrument is faulty, a fault of the optical instrument is determined” ([0009]), these are not considered a definition of the term “faulty”.One of skill in the art would not be clear how to determine the wafer or the optical instrument to be faulty.--Claim 1 recites “executing a post-etching outlier model to determine whether the product is faulty”. Although the specification discloses “A post-etching outlier model is executed to determine whether the product is faulty” ([0005]), this is not considered a definition of the term “faulty”.One of skill in the art would not be clear how to determine a product to be faulty.
Claims 2-4, 6-14 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8257546), hereinafter “Davis”, in view of Coronel et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5658418), hereinafter “Coronel”:--Claims 1, 2 : Davis teaches a method of etching a substrate during a semiconductor device fabrication, comprisingproviding a model for the etching comprising (Fig. 1) - measuring dimensions of structures to be formed on a substrate by using ex-situ metrology; - determining if the substrate is faulty; - etching the substrate by using end-point detection by in-situ metrology to form the structure.Davis further teaches that the ex-situ metrology comprises critical dimensions (CD), layer thickness, and the like; and the in-situ metrology comprises spectroscopy, interferometry, scatterometry, reflectometry, and the like (Col. 3, Line 27 through Col. 5, Line 45). Davis fails to teach the claimed feature “receiving a wafer classification model that includes wafer types, product types and end-point detection (EPD) algorithms, wherein each EPD algorithm corresponds to a respective wafer type and a respective product type”. Coronel teaches a method of etching while monitoring for an end point (Claim 1), comprising- providing a product wafer having a layer to be etched 15 disposed over a substrate (Col. 1, Lines 32-63);- determining wavelengths to be used for the product from a product specification (Col. 9, Lines 24 through Col. 10, Line 17); - determining etch point criteria from product specifications, comprising a theoretical computation based on the product specifications and/or a previous experimentation on the product (Col. 10, Lines 17
through Col. 10, Line 53), wherein parameters STOP THICKNESS and RATE TIME (Col. 5, Lines 10-25) are determined for each wavelengths (Col. 10, Lines 53 through Col. 14, Line 20);- performing the etching on the product wafer while monitoring the etch process (Col. 14, Lines 21 through Col. 17, Line 37). Coronel further teaches that the above method advantageously enable etching a layer to a given thickness with great accuracy and a significant reduction in processing time while reducing rework due to a greater reproducibility (Col. 14, Lines 38-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an etching model based on a product specification and corresponding etch point criteria before and to monitor during the etching in the invention of Davis because Coronel teaches that this would advantageously enable etching a layer to a given thickness with great accuracy and a significant reduction in processing time while reducing rework due to a greater reproducibility.--Claim 3: Although Davis fails to teach interpreting a lack of data for the product in the etching model as a faulty condition in the invention of Davis modified by Coronel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to do so since Davis modified by Coronel teaches that the etching is based on the data from the etching model.--Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform an analysis to determine whether an optical instrument is faulty and the reason for the fault, and to determine a reason for a fault that is not caused by the optical instrument, such as due to a reference wafer.--Claim 12: Fig. 1B of Davis shows a structure is uncovered on the product wafer during the etching. --Claim 13: Davis modified by Coronel teaches to monitor the etching by using the etching model, as explained above.--Claim 16: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to stop the etching if the predicted end point time has been reached.--Claim 17: Coronel teaches to determine etch point criteria from product specifications, comprising a theoretical computation based on a previous experimentation on the product, as explained above--Claims 18, 19: Davis teaches that the ex-situ metrology comprises critical dimensions (CD), layer thickness, and the like; and the in-situ metrology comprises spectroscopy, interferometry, scatterometry, reflectometry, and the like, as explained above.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Coronel as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20100332013), hereinafter “Choi”:--Claim 11: Davis modified by Coronel teaches the invention as in claim 7 above. Davis further teaches that the etch rate data may be determined by an OES monitor assembly (Col. 4, Line 52-59). Davis and Coronel fail to teach the claimed feature the etch rate model is based on voltage-current (VI) data. Choi teaches that etch rate may be determined by using OES and VI sensor ([0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an etch rate model based on OES data and VI data in the invention of Davis modified by Coronel because Choi teaches that this would be effective.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Coronel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6475906), hereinafter “Lee”:--Claim 14: Davis modified by Coronel teaches the invention as in claim 12 above. Davis and Coronel fail to teach that the etching exposes a top of a transistor gate.Lee, also directed to fabricating a semiconductor device, teaches that the fabrication may comprise etching through a dielectric layer to expose a gate contact of a transistor by using endpoint detection (abstract; Fig. 8, Col. 5, Lines 14-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to etch through a dielectric layer to expose a gate contact of a transistor by using endpoint detection in the invention of Davis modified by Coronel because Lee teaches that this is routinely performed in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713