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 .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on April 05th, 2024, 06/04/2024, 09/03/2024, 10/07/2024 and 04/07/2025 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
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 limitations are:
1) “an information system configured to:…..” in claim 7;
The specification includes sufficient support for a structure, material and/or act for the recited information system to perform the recited functions as disclosed in the instant specification’s [0040] to carry the structure of a computer includes storage, processor circuit, interface unit and output device.
These limitations below are not interpreted and evoking of 112f:
2) “a measurement device configured to…..” in claim 7;
Wherein the recited measurement device is recited with a structural term of a “device” hence is sufficient of a structure to perform the function of measuring of a measurement device Specification [0035]- measurement device includes scanning electron microscope 201(denoted as "SEM 201), which includes electron gun 205,condenser lenses 210, 215, and 220, scanning coils 225, and vacuum pump 202.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“measuring corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process;
estimating a mean and a variance using the corresponding physical characteristics;
predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance; and
controlling or dispositioning the semiconductor manufacturing process using the predicted manufacturing variation”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes/Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations as mentioned above are processed that are observation and evaluation can be done through the human mind, such as a human can measure some characteristics of a semiconductor features of wafers by observing using pen and paper as well as predicting some variation according to a mathematical operation of estimating mean and variance of the characteristics, and by so the human can use their mind to control or dispositioning the semiconductor manufacturing process through observation and evaluation.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: There is no other features or additional elements in the claim, therefore, these judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-6 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1. Moreover, claim 3 and 6 recites wherein clauses of merely giving further specification of the features each of them depend on in claim 1 hence, still merely the judicial exceptions without further limiting these limitations in meaningful way. Claim 2 recites, in part, “adjusting a lithography tool…process” which is a mental process abstract idea which the human mind can perform through observation and evaluation. Claim 4 recites, in part, “using the mean and the variance includes combining the mean and the variance” which is a mathematical operation abstract idea. claim 5 recites, in part, “generating a quotient…and the variance” is a series of mathematical operations.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-13,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus/device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 7 recites, in part:
“measure corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process;
estimate a mean and a variance using the corresponding physical characteristics;
predict manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance; and
generate, using predicted manufacturing variation, an indication to rework at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes/Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations as mentioned above are processed that are observation and evaluation can be done through the human mind, such as a human can measure some characteristics of a semiconductor features of wafers by observing using pen and paper as well as predicting some variation according to a mathematical operation of estimating mean and variance of the characteristics, and by so the human can use their mind to generate an indication to rework the wafer.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: There is no other features or additional elements in the claim, therefore, these judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 7 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 8-13 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 7. Moreover, claim 8-11 recites wherein clauses of merely giving further specification of the features each of them depend on in claim 7 hence, still merely the judicial exceptions without further limiting these limitations in meaningful way. Claim 12 recites, in part, “combine the mean and the variance” is a mathematical operation. Claim 13 recites, in part, “generate a quotient….variance” is a series of mathematical operation abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 8-13 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 14 and its dependent claims 15-20,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a medium/device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 14 recites, in part:
“measuring corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process;
estimating a mean and a variance using the corresponding physical characteristics;
predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance; and
reworking at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers based on the manufacturing variation.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes/Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations as mentioned above are processed that are observation and evaluation can be done through the human mind, such as a human can measure some characteristics of a semiconductor features of wafers by observing using pen and paper as well as predicting some variation according to a mathematical operation of estimating mean and variance of the characteristics, and by so the human can use their mind to generate an indication to rework the wafer.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: There is no other features or additional elements in the claim, therefore, these judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 14 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 8-13 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 14. Moreover, claim 17 and 20 recites wherein clauses of merely giving further specification of the features each of them depend on in claim 14 hence, still merely the judicial exceptions without further limiting these limitations in meaningful way. Claim 15 recites, in part, “determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions” which is a mental process abstract idea of which the human mind can perform through observation and evaluation using pen and paper. Claim 16 recites, in part, “comparing the proportion of manufacturing excursions to a threshold value” which is a mental process abstract idea of which the human mind can perform through observation and evaluation using pen and paper, wherein the human mind can compare some data/information to a threshold value. Claim 18 recites, in part, “combining the mean and the variance” is a mathematical operation abstract idea. claim 19 recites, in part, “generating a quotient….the variance” is a series of mathematical operation abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 14-20 are not patent eligible under 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himanshu Vajaria et. al. (“US 2016/0371826 A1” hereinafter as “Vajaria”).
Regarding claim 1, Vajaria discloses a method, comprising: measuring corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process ([0023] discloses compliance inspection for a plurality of wafers for semiconductor production based on receiving wafer images based on die alignment, fidelity, focus, reticle tilt, dimensions, etc. according to [0024] these are analogous to physical characteristics); estimating a mean and a variance using the corresponding physical characteristics ([0027] discloses a mean intensity is estimated based on the physical characteristic of the die, together with the determination of the variance according to [0029]); predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance ([0044] discloses basing on the mean and the variance metrics to predict variations of the wafers/semiconductor during its manufacturing process); and controlling or dispositioning the semiconductor manufacturing process using the predicted manufacturing variation (“or” indicates a selection, only one of these options is the instant scope of the limitation, the examiner selects “controlling” which is disclosed in [0055] wherein basing on the variation predicted to determine rework or scrap of the wafers, capable of routing wafers).
Regarding claim 2, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the semiconductor manufacturing process includes adjusting a lithography tool used in the semiconductor manufacturing process ([0007] discloses control monitoring of the monitoring process for lithography, therefore, in [0055] where it discloses the controlling step, it can be understood to adjust the lithography tool used during the monitoring process for the control monitoring which is further disclosed in [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes corresponding dimensions of the plurality of semiconductor features and corresponding positions of the plurality of semiconductor features ([0024] discloses the physical characteristics, as discussed above, to include dimension of the dies of the wafers, and alignment, overlay, tilt [characteristics that indicates positioning/positions]).
Regarding claim 4, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 1, wherein predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 1) includes combining the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 1, the predicting of the variation of the semiconductor includes the use of the determined mean and the variance, in other words, they are being used in combination, further disclosed in [0050], wherein the prediction is based on the combination of PCA-based mask and gradient-based metric as being the mean according to [0034] and the variance in the PCA-based mask).
Regarding claim 7, Vajaria discloses an apparatus, comprising: a measurement device configured to measure corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process to generate measurement data ([0023] discloses compliance inspection for a plurality of wafers for semiconductor production based on receiving wafer images based on die alignment, fidelity, focus, reticle tilt, dimensions, etc. according to [0024] these are analogous to physical characteristics [further analogous to the measurement data as recited, which is obtained using camera or imaging sensor according to 0048 which is analogous to the recited measurement device]); and an information system configured to: estimate a mean and a variance using the measurement data ([0027] discloses a mean intensity is estimated based on the physical characteristic of the die, together with the determination of the variance according to [0029] using a computer according to [0048] which is analogous to the recited information system); predict manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance ([0044] discloses basing on the mean and the variance metrics to predict variations of the wafers/semiconductor during its manufacturing process); and generate, using predicted manufacturing variation, an indication to rework at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers ([0055] wherein basing on the variation predicted to determine rework or scrap of the wafers, capable of routing wafers including rework [according to 0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Vajaria discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the information system is further configured to generate control signals for the least one tool used in the semiconductor manufacturing process in response to a generation of the indication to rework the at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers ([0055] discloses the transport state to control the routing wafers for rework which indicates a transporting of the signals for controlling and monitoring of the production process such as recited in [0004], in other words, when the wafer is up for rework, the system transport for reworking with the computer sending signals for the programmed processor to execute such instructions to the machine).
Regarding claim 9, Vajaria discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one tool includes a lithography tool ([0024] discloses the system includes a lithography module/tool).
Regarding claim 10, Vajaria discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one tool includes an etch tool ([0002] discloses the system includes an etch tool).
Regarding claim 11, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes corresponding dimensions of the plurality of semiconductor features and corresponding positions of the plurality of semiconductor features ([0024] discloses the physical characteristics, as discussed above, to include dimension of the dies of the wafers, and alignment, overlay, tilt [characteristics that indicates positioning/positions]).
Regarding claim 12, Vajaria discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein to predict the manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process, the information system is further configured to combine the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 7, the predicting of the variation of the semiconductor includes the use of the determined mean and the variance, in other words, they are being used in combination, further disclosed in [0050], wherein the prediction is based on the combination of PCA-based mask and gradient-based metric as being the mean according to [0034] and the variance in the PCA-based mask).
Regarding claim 14, Vajaria discloses a tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program instructions stored therein that, in response to execution by a computer system, causes the computer system to perform operations comprising ([0048] discloses the processing includes the use of a computer which indicates the use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium such as a RAM or ROM): a method, comprising: measuring corresponding physical characteristics of a plurality of semiconductor features on a plurality of wafers produced using a semiconductor manufacturing process ([0023] discloses compliance inspection for a plurality of wafers for semiconductor production based on receiving wafer images based on die alignment, fidelity, focus, reticle tilt, dimensions, etc. according to [0024] these are analogous to physical characteristics); estimating a mean and a variance using the corresponding physical characteristics ([0027] discloses a mean intensity is estimated based on the physical characteristic of the die, together with the determination of the variance according to [0029]); predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance ([0044] discloses basing on the mean and the variance metrics to predict variations of the wafers/semiconductor during its manufacturing process); and reworking at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers based on the manufacturing variation ([0055] wherein basing on the variation predicted to determine rework or scrap of the wafers, capable of routing wafers including rework [according to 0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes corresponding dimensions of the plurality of semiconductor features and corresponding positions of the plurality of semiconductor features ([0024] discloses the physical characteristics, as discussed above, to include dimension of the dies of the wafers, and alignment, overlay, tilt [characteristics that indicates positioning/positions]).
Regarding claim 18, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein predicting manufacturing variation of the semiconductor manufacturing process using the mean and the variance includes combining the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 1, the predicting of the variation of the semiconductor includes the use of the determined mean and the variance, in other words, they are being used in combination, further disclosed in [0050], wherein the prediction is based on the combination of PCA-based mask and gradient-based metric as being the mean according to [0034] and the variance in the PCA-based mask).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himanshu Vajaria et. al. (“US 2016/0371826 A1” hereinafter as “Vajaria”)in view of Robert R. Sokal et. al. (“Significance Tests for Coefficients of Variation and Variability Profiles, March 1980, Systematic Biology, Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 50-66” hereinafter as “Sokal”).
Regarding claim 5, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 4, wherein combining the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 1).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance.
In the same field of variability determination (title, Sokal) Sokal discloses includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance (page 63, “Appendix A” discloses the formula for coefficient of variation which includes a quotient of the mean and the variance which is used for determination of variability including using of standard deviation; which can be used in Vajaria as the standard deviation divided by the mean and the variance), and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance (as discussed previously, the formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
168
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is a mathematical formula and the quotient of the mean and the variance).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform combining the mean and the variance includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance as taught by Sokal to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect variability more efficiently (abstract, Sokal).
Regarding claim 13, Vajaria discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein to combine the mean and the variance, the information system (as discussed above in claim 7).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose is further configured to generate a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein the information system is further configured to generate a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance.
In the same field of variability determination (title, Sokal) Sokal discloses further configured to generate a quotient of the mean and the variance (page 63, “Appendix A” discloses the formula for coefficient of variation which includes a quotient of the mean and the variance which is used for determination of variability including using of standard deviation; which can be used in Vajaria as the standard deviation divided by the mean and the variance), and wherein the information system is further configured to generate a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance (as discussed previously, the formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
168
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is a mathematical formula and the quotient of the mean and the variance).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform combining the mean and the variance includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance as taught by Sokal to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect variability more efficiently (abstract, Sokal).
Regarding claim 19, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein combining the mean and the variance (as discussed above in claim 18).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance.
In the same field of variability determination (title, Sokal) Sokal discloses includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance (page 63, “Appendix A” discloses the formula for coefficient of variation which includes a quotient of the mean and the variance which is used for determination of variability including using of standard deviation; which can be used in Vajaria as the standard deviation divided by the mean and the variance), and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance (as discussed previously, the formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
168
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is a mathematical formula and the quotient of the mean and the variance).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform combining the mean and the variance includes generating a quotient of the mean and the variance, and wherein predicting the manufacturing variation includes generating a prediction using a mathematical function and the quotient of the mean and the variance as taught by Sokal to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect variability more efficiently (abstract, Sokal).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himanshu Vajaria et. al. (“US 2016/0371826 A1” hereinafter as “Vajaria”)in view of H. T. Kim et. al. (“A Precise Inspection Technique for Wafer Pre-sawing Lines using Affine Transformation, Dec. 2008, 15th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice” hereinafter as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 6, Vajaria discloses the method of claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature.
In the same field of wafer inspection (title and abstract, Kim), Kim discloses wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature (section II.A, 1st par., discloses the edges includes features in vertical and horizon directions, the edges can be understood to be cut feature as claimed, by BRI, of the region of the rectangle oriented hence indicates width and lines).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform determining of physical characteristics wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine variability in wafer production effectively (abstract and section II.A, 1st par., Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14 (as discussed above in claim 20).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature.
In the same field of wafer inspection (title and abstract, Kim), Kim discloses wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature (section II.A, 1st par., discloses the edges includes features in vertical and horizon directions, the edges can be understood to be cut feature as claimed, by BRI, of the region of the rectangle oriented hence indicates width and lines).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform determining of physical characteristics wherein the corresponding physical characteristics includes at least a vertical dimension of a cut feature included on a particular wafer of the plurality of wafers, and a vertical width of a horizontal line associated with the cut feature as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine variability in wafer production effectively (abstract and section II.A, 1st par., Kim).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himanshu Vajaria et. al. (“US 2016/0371826 A1” hereinafter as “Vajaria”)in view of Garry Tuohy (“Excursion Wafer Loss Prediction by Local Density Segmentation, October 2016, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 29, Issue 4” hereinafter as “Tuohy”).
Regarding claim 15, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein predicting the manufacturing variation (as discussed above in claim 14).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose includes determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions.
In the same field of wafer inspection (title and abstract, Touhy), Touhy discloses includes determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions (section VI. 2nd par., discloses the variation/defect detection includes determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions of the wafer production process).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform predicting the manufacturing variation includes determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions as taught by Touhy to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect variation in wafer for manufacturing more effectively (abstract, section VI. 2nd par., Touhy).
Regarding claim 16, Vajaria discloses the tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein reworking the at least one wafer of the plurality of wafers (as discussed above in claim 14).
However, Vajaria does not explicitly disclose includes comparing the proportion of manufacturing excursions to a threshold value.
In the same field of wafer inspection (title and abstract, Touhy), Touhy discloses includes comparing the proportion of manufacturing excursions to a threshold value (section VI. 2nd par., discloses the variation detection includes determining a proportion of manufacturing excursions of the wafer production process; which is further discloses in section II, 1st par., wherein the proportion of manufacturing excursions is being compared to a threshold to determine the variation/defects).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajaria to perform predicting the manufacturing variation includes comparing the proportion of manufacturing excursions to a threshold value as taught by Touhy to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect variation in wafer for manufacturing more effectively (abstract, section VI. 2nd par., Touhy).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eugene C. Smith et. al. (“US 6,857,938 B1”) discloses wafer variation detection (abstract) using mean and variance determination on the physical characteristic of the wafers (column 8, 1st 3 paragraphs) to detect the variation for rework or not (column 1, 4th to the last par.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673